Tuesday 22 January 2019

Ricky Phillips Replies







(I had been in contact with Ricky regarding his picture and after a discussion, he offered to post a reply to the reaction and so on. So here it is and I will leave my comments to the comments section --- Ed.)


Why nothing prepares you for the Loch Ness Monsters…

(Ricky D Phillips)

Did I say “Monsters”? – I did – and not the long-necked variety either, but the bipedal kind with a phone in their hand or a laptop and a ready wit. Don’t get me wrong, since “that photo” some of the comments I have seen from people have been hilarious, complete with Gifs and memes, and I have even joined in on the joke with quite a few people, but there have been two or three really, really nasty comments too. Now, I’m no stranger to the press and to the odd moron chiming in, but as a historian, I have to prove every word I write, and I can back them all up: not so with “Nessie”.

If many comments be believed, of course, I am supposed to have a full film crew on standby and a concrete and referencable back-story to the whole thing, and that’s just not how it works. It isn’t like I actually tried to take a picture of it! However, a lot of these comments have been driven by the press and have been misunderstood from there, so I thought I’d set the record straight on “that photo” in my own words, and Roland has been kind enough to let me guest-blog on his site, since he seems to actually be the most decent, well-informed and impartial person I have met in this whole curious event.

What I have done is to write down the common questions or points so that I can answer them bit by bit. I’ll try to keep it humorous, because what else is the whole Nessie myth but fun? It strikes me that a lot of commenters on news sites must be lousy parents… every Christmas they must be debunking Santa to their bewildered children! So here are the answers in my own words, which if nothing else, will teach you not to believe what the press write about you!

So what actually happened? – I was in Fort Augustus, most of my tour group had gone on a boat cruise around the Loch and I went to grab a chippy then strolled along the Oich to take a look at the old wooden bridge there. Fort Augustus is a tiny place but pretty and it was one of few things I hadn’t seen up close. I went to take a shot across the river, heard a noise (the “Darth Vader noise” I will explain below) looked over and saw something with a long neck and head dive back under the water. I got my phone ready to take a picture, but I didn’t see it again. Then I realised I had snapped it by chance. That’s pretty much it…

Do I think it was Nessie? – Despite words such as ‘claimed’ and the Daily Mail’s addition of ‘insists’ I NEVER actually said the words “Loch Ness Monster”. In fact, when a journalist asked, I said that all I would say was “I saw this, it was on my phone, this is what it looked like” – which was as much as I could actually say. “But do you think it was Nessie?” was the reply and again, I answered that I simply couldn’t say what it was. I might as well have said “Absolutely guvnor, no doubt about it at all!” - because that’s effectively what they wrote anyway!

Is it a fake photo? – No, and of course there are so many ways to fake a photo, but I’m certainly no photographer (a few may have pointed that out in comments!) and no I don’t own Photoshop either. That is the original, as I saw it and as my camera phone captured it.

Is it a sock puppet? – I had to put this one down! Let me ask you something: could you please put a sock on your arm, wade into a freezing river in December and lay there whilst I take a photo of it? – If someone asked you that, you’d probably say no, wouldn’t you? I mean, it’s not even conceivable. Ah, say some, but could it be my arm instead? – So bear in mind I’m driving and guiding and won’t reach Edinburgh until about 8pm – about five hours later – and everyone in the group could see me dripping wet, I’m going to climb into a river, magically dry myself, change my clothes in front of loads of people and appear to my tour group 15 minutes after the incident, looking dry as a bone… and quite who this mystery accomplice is supposed to be, I have no idea. So, no… it isn’t a sock puppet!

Is it a log? – You know, it’s a funny thing about logs… they tend to look like logs! Forty years on this earth and I know what a log looks like, and a branch too, come to think of it! No it wasn’t… a wee bit of credit here for knowing the difference!

Why is the photo so grey and grainy? – An obvious question, this… it’s grey because it’s always grey! The Oich is grey, the Loch is grey, the sky is grey, the creature is grey and temperature fluctuations in the Loch and with the river meeting it, mean there’s usually a grey haze there. It’s grey, not black and white, it’s literally grey there. It’s grainy because that’s a zoom about three times in. It’s a phone camera, not a sniper scope.

What did you take the picture on? – A potato. There, I said it. Everybody else did! No, it was my Huawei mobile, and yes, it is old! I’ve got so many photos stored on it – I write military history and so I screenshot quotes from veterans or save photos for a few upcoming projects and I have THOUSANDS of pictures on it (not to mention thousands more of my dogs!) and last time I had an upgrade, I lost all of them, so I have deliberately ignored the upgrade… but it’s not that old!! Oh and apparently, tour guides are supposed to have great cameras? I’m not sure why. When you see the same stuff every few days, you don’t take pictures. Plus, you take your eye off the tour group for half a minute and someone will wander or do something usually suicidal, like try to take a selfie in the middle of the road.

Where’s the original photo? – Here’s your “Hmmm…” moment, doubters. That phone is so full of stuff that it doesn’t store any more photos. Occasionally, one gets through, for no reason that I can understand. So when I take a photo, if I like it, I have to immediately share to my social media in real time or send it to myself. I’m only lucky I remembered after I had zoomed in and screenshotted it, otherwise there’s a 99% chance it would have vanished. I can hear you all going “Hmmm…” from here… you’re lucky it’s all I got! But seriously, that’s it. If I had forgotten, we wouldn’t even be this far along!

But you run a tourism / guiding business, right? – No! I’m not sure where this comes from. I’m a military historian and author and yes, I also do guiding. When Mrs Ricky got made redundant, right as we were moving house, we needed more income. I’m a trained battlefield guide, I love history and I can make it relevant and interesting, so what else was I going to do? I genuinely love the Highlands, ever since I got to swing a sword around in the film Mary Queen of Scots, so it’s a pleasure to do something I love, in a place I love. It isn’t quite what I planned, but hey, we’ve all had to step up to earn the money. But Nessie or no Nessie, nobody gets paid more or gets more tours, so there was no advantage to the photo, it was just what was there.

Did you get paid for this? – Absolutely not. I didn’t ask, and nobody offered. It didn’t even occur to me. Despite the Sun advertising that they pay for stories, I was actually contacted by a freelance journalist, who obviously did get paid. It was what it was.

Some people have suggested you have a book to sell? – On the Loch Ness Monster? Multi-time #1 Best Selling Military Historian, famed for his work on the Falklands War… can you fit Nessie into that? Maybe it went down with the task force or popped up at Goose Green? No, I have no book on Nessie nor any plans to write one. A military historian actually doesn’t need Nessie in his life! Again, what can I say? It was what it was.

So why did you send the picture in? – I actually thought about not doing it. I joked with a mate about “career suicide” before I did, and I think it took five or six days to decide it couldn’t do any harm. I sent it in to Gary at the Nessie sightings register and asked if it was anything he’d seen before. He contacted the journalists and I was happy to help. I actually didn’t think many people would be so interested. That bit, I got wrong! That said, it was there, I have nothing to gain, nothing to hide, but there are also big Nessie fans out there, and small towns like Fort Augustus need Nessie. Without it, they might as well pack up and move away. So somewhere along the chain, it feeds families and I’m nobody to take that away. I thought about it and my conscience said yes, do it. That conscience is clear and the only gain I have is that my nieces and nephews think it’s just a bit cool to have an uncle who did it.

And the Darth Vader bit? – Let’s get it straight, I said it sounded like something blowing air, like a whale or dolphin does, but it sounded metallic, a bit like Darth Vader sneezing (not breathing!) and I made it clear. My guess is that some papers decided the distinctive Darth Vader breathing noise would sound more sinister, so put it in, but it wasn’t my doing. Like ‘claims’, ‘insists’ or other terms, it’s nothing to do with me…. But then I’ve been in a lot of newspapers and have even read “Exclusive Interviews” I have supposedly given to newspapers, who have absolutely never spoken to me! I’m used to it.

What do I think of the press reaction? – I went to bed on December 18th with it in the Scottish Sun and the Daily Record, and I was quite surprised at that. The first thing I had the next morning was a mate messaging me from Australia to say it had made the papers over there and I thought… “Oh God, they haven’t made this a huge deal, have they?” – They had. The Sun, Express, Mirror and then the Daily Mail. If you want anything to go viral online, it’s the DM. They have more online reach than anyone. The second I saw that, I knew we’d gone from snowball to avalanche. I’ve now read it in German too, in French, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and even in India where (apparently) I am “a world-famous scientist”! I got a C for science at school, by the way! Famous historian? – Yes. Famous scientist? – Erm…….

And the public’s reaction? – It’s funny. In the history world, they always say never to read your reviews. Bernard Cornwell always says “A good review goes to your head and a bad review straight to your heart” but I always do. I always made it a thing to go back and answer people when discussing my history books, so I did it with this. The reaction is good, and I’m not asking anyone to “believe” but I’m joining in with the joke, because as I said, it is ultimately fun. One guy got verbally abusive, and there’s no reason for that. Another threatened to come over from Motherwell and give me a flying kick in the face! I just said I’d like to see him try and he didn’t answer back. It’s always painful when you read something about yourself which you know isn’t true. I should be used to it by now, but I’m just another normal person who does a job, and there’s no reason to abuse people or make stuff up about them or their families. On balance though, people have been great, but you’ll always find idiots. They get very brave online but the difference between me and other historians is that I’ll always answer you back. We’re all accountable for our words, just as I am for “that photo”.

Am I glad I took the picture? – I suppose yes, on balance. Nessie isn’t something a military historian needs in his life, and I do a lot of controversial stuff, so it could have impacted me adversely. Literally only one person has used it as a vague dig at me and my professional work, and it really wasn’t a big deal. On the whole, professional damage was minimal and I must say this: we military historians are nerds… everyone has an inner nerd and mine is history. But for those whose inner nerd is Nessie, it’s a great thing. Yes, I guess I’m glad I did it and took the plunge to send in the photo. It could have been anyone taking that photo, it just happened to be me. Before I sent it in, I did have a few words with myself about whether or not I really needed this in my life, but the argument which won, was “What right have I to censor this?” – Whatever it is, it’s there and that’s what it looks like. To some people, this is like Christmas day. I just happened to take the photo, and I considered that I really didn’t have a right to sit on it and just keep it for myself. Nessie belongs to everybody.

Do I believe in Nessie? – An obvious one for me to finish on. Nessie has been a story since St Columba. Now and then, we hear of a species believed extinct for thousands of years suddenly found alive and well, so I guess anything is possible. The sea is more unexplored than space for us humans, and Loch Ness goes down at its deepest over 800 metres. That’s beyond crush depth for some submarines still to this day. Certainly, a lot of money is being pumped into it, the Scottish government has a Nessie action plan should it be found, and you can find on the net pictures or videos of unknown creatures partially decomposed on beaches and things. Ultimately, I’d say you’ve got to have an open mind. As a historian, I’ve found things which the history books called “myths” and then I go looking and one day, I’m stood there looking at it right in front of me, so I’ve had to change my perceptions. If you ask me, “Is there a Loch Ness Monster?” I’m going to tell you yes, but it would be a fool to think there’s been only one for all of these years. A small colony of something we don’t know about, seems feasible. The Coelacanth survived sixty-six million years after it was supposed to have been extinct, so can we honestly say we know everything?

And Finally - In closing, I’d just like to add that this simply is whatever it is: a creature of some sorts, and that’s what it looks like. I’ve got nothing to gain, no reason to lie and actually it isn’t the best thing for a historian of all people to find: if anything, it’s probably the worst thing. There are a few times I wish I hadn’t, for all of the hassle involved, but then I don’t want other people to be put off doing it if they genuinely see something either… all I’d say is don’t fake it. People hunt for Nessie like I hunt for lost artefacts or battlefields or whatever… and a fake is not what people need. It just makes the whole thing ridiculous. In fact, if you take out all of the hundreds of fakes which have been debunked, Nessie as a concept looks plausible, so don’t become a fraud. There is something there and I’ve seen it. I’m not going to say what it is, because I don’t know, but there’s something there and I’m glad and perhaps even a bit privileged to have been a part of it. The only monsters I have found along the way, have been the human kind, and I have a clear enough conscience to bear them anyway. So don’t fake a Nessie sighting, but if one day, you should see her, you let people know, and don’t ever be ashamed… Nessie is more than a happy legend or a fun hobby, it is families and livelihoods in the Highlands and you’re never doing the wrong thing if you know you’re telling the truth.


140 comments:

  1. I was happy to post Ricky's reply. Certain professional sceptics who snipe from afar and have that not so well known medical condition known as Witness Aversion Syndrome may want to take deep breaths and reply. Well, apparently one has "this-blog-ophobia" and has to be told by one of his minions who won't turn into stone when they look upon this medusian blog! I do not think Ricky is the default liar so often assumed when this kind of photo turns up and I do not believe he is so thick he can't figure out some basic checks such as bird, branch, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Phil, thanks for painting in a lot of the background relating to this event.
    Because all I have to go on is this zoomed in portion of your original photo I am finding it hard to imagine it's location in the water, from what you say it seems to have been right up by the old wooden bridge, which is quite some distance up the river Oich.
    In the hope of stemming a split in the (already small) nessie hunting community by individuals going off and forming the 'River Oich Monster Investigation Expedition, or ROMIE for short, would you be able to sketch a drawing of the' bigger picture'for me please, so that I can be sure of where you were, and more importantly where the object was. I realise this might be better done whenever your tour is back in the Fort, so that you can get the right perspective so no rush. Thanks. And thanks for an interesting read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve and Roland - I just want to say no matter what the outcome of all the Loch Ness pursuits and events thank you for your efforts in the search. Both of you bring the current Loch Ness info to us and put in the work. Roland you keep this topic interesting - if it were not for this blog I would probably have lost much interest in Nessie. Cheers gentlemen and please stay on the trail of this mystery.

      Delete
  3. Sorry Ricky, I just reolised I called you Phil.
    Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. His sock puppet explanation,goes all over the place.And the last part is dodgy.( Having an assistant)
    A friend w wetsuit and a Nessie arm puppet could do it very easily. Only 3 feet from shore maby.
    Only reverse speech of audio from this guy will sastify me pro or con as to this being a real Nessie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know any friends with wet suits and arm puppets in Fort Augustus? Me neither! People there work in service industry for tourists, they don't ponce about in rivers for tour guides. This supposed "mate with a wet suit" doesn't exist. The.only people I know there by name are Rab and Vicky from the chip shop!

      Delete
    2. My theory is... if it looks like a wetsuit glove, it’s probably a wetsuit glove. My linked image proved that to be a very strong contender as being the culprit. Remember, the simplest explanation is normally the best.

      Delete
    3. Re, “You know any friends with wet suits...” could just as easily have been a hired wetsuit.

      This company hire full body wetsuits for £7.50. And they cover Fort Augustus.
      http://www.explorehighland.com/hire/equipment-hire/

      Delete
    4. Well that's surely very nice for them... and the simplest answer seems (to you, at least) to call someone a liar and a fraud. To that, I take exception, because if you'd Googled me, you'd see that this thing could only damage me financially, so I'd hardly go around spending cash and convincing some accomplice to ponce about in a river for shits and giggles... actually, you did hit it on the head though: what we historians call Ockham's Razor, the simplest answer is the truth: It's there and that's what it looks like. Or could a plausible answer get more convoluted than that?? Trust me dude, I don't and didn't need Nessie. I'm on TV most weeks.

      Delete
    5. For the record I have never called you a liar, or a fraud. Can you can show me anywhere in this thread where I have done that?

      Delete
    6. The hoax desire is a strong one.And there is no problem doing it with a dinosaur custom arm puppet.Is there money in it? Maby.could it be done with a wetsuited friend? Absolutely ! Even in winter.
      However..there is the possibility that it may be real also.If Mr Phillips would give an audio interview of 10 minutes on this incident then reverse speech can be used to determine if he's telling the truth.
      Well Mr Phillips?

      Delete
    7. Reverse speech? You crack me up John. I think your tin foil hat is on too tight. LOL Just teasing you John. A suggestion of a polygraph would do better, but that would imply that Mr. Phillips is lying. I'm not ready to call him a liar. So, you think he's one of your paid skeptics/hoaxers?

      Delete
    8. The CIA flew it's inventer John Oates to Langley to brief them for 5 days.It works better than a polygraph and can give info that polys cannot.
      I guarantee it can tell us if Mr Phillips used a puppet or it's the real Nessie.
      Personally,I'm in the middle.
      As to conspiracy.every single conspiracy has mostly been proven and anyone who says there's no conspiracies( special interest groups) is functionally insane.

      Delete
    9. I have no idea what reverse speech is... but no, there's no glove puppet or arm or anything. I simply didn't need Nessie in my life. Imagine multi best selling historian caught with Nessie glove puppet... my family and I would basically starve to death. Doesn't sound exactly reasonable, does it? On balance, even holocaust denial is safer ground for a historian. So no... no puppets, accomplices, swimmers, hoaxes... just that thing in the river, whatever we choose to call it.

      Delete
  5. Hi Ricky, thinking about it I've no idea if you are any good with the pencils, so here's another request, could you take a photograph from the Same location but not zoom in, just a wide pointed in the direction that you took the original that would be even better than a sketch and much easier to do.
    Then send it to Roland, or me at
    Steve@nessiehunter.co.uk
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure what you mean by pencils? When I'm next up I'll try to find my way back there, although snow has cancelled some tours and it's utterly yucky there, apparently. I'll see what I can do, weather and time permitting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a wide photo from the same spot will do. If your camera on your phone isn't up to the job I bet one of the people on your tour will happily take a photo for you if you tell them where to point it, I find that the public are delighted to help when you tell them what it's for.
      As to the weather, you've been miss informed, it's quite mild at the moment.

      Delete
    2. Steve's request seems like it would answer a few questions; I for one would love to have a bit of specific location regarding this photo. How near the wooden bridge, for starters. Where was RP in relation to the water? Just the basic facts...
      Funny about that weather, innit?

      Delete
  7. Hi Ricky, I was skeptical about the phone storage issue, but your account is plausible. Please though, get a new sd card and a dropbox account - for next time ;-) It would be good if you could answer Steve F's request about the location - or maybe pin it on google maps? PS think it's nigh on 800ft deep, not 800 metres?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do 300 year old books with mould and think they're exciting. Mrs Ricky does my phone upgrades, I just resist the change because I know I'll lose stuff!

      Delete
  8. I believe it’s a wetsuit glove, nothing more, nothing less.
    http://oi65.tinypic.com/2e3vomp.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that's a really stupid answer, nothing more, nothing less...

      Delete
    2. What’s stupid about it? It’s a more logical reason than a monster. Yes or no?

      Delete
    3. No... not unless I live in a parallel universe where I run around in Lochs with wet suits and somehow don't remember it.

      Delete
  9. Here is a better link to the wetsuit glove comparison. You may need to copy and paste it into your chosen browser.

    https://ibb.co/9tz71tR?fbclid=IwAR3FlsA4VdYgi23wM2PvUQ0CLUzUh-kbERukfTRJWqbIHrRJBUVo0cPABQQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So complete your analysis ... did Ricky fail to spot the swimmer or is he lying?

      Delete
    2. I can’t say if Ricky is lying or not. All I can say is that his image looks like a wetsuit glove. Would you agree that it looks pretty close?

      Delete
    3. It "looks like a wetsuit glove" or "it's a wetsuit glove"? Can't say or won't say? Just be open and frank, some will agree with you some won't.



      Delete
    4. My personal opinion is that it’s a wetsuit glove. What’s your opinion on the glove theory?

      Delete
    5. The shapes do not fit and the rest of the swimmer should be visible as per your image.

      Delete
    6. There is that dark area in the photo just about where a wet suited head would be. I have looked at lots of wetsuit gloves, and have seen none with that distinctive pattern though...

      Delete
    7. There's a certain hilarity reading things about myself which go into the bizarre and weird. Google me... I'm on TV most weeks, in a hundred newspapers, magazines, radio shows and "Nessie" is actually professionally damaging per se. So "Ooh, he got down, swam in his wetsuit, then a submarine helped him with alien technology, then...." how complex does the excuse for the obvious have to be?? It's there, I saw it, it looks like that... how simple is that compared to some of the truly hilarious ideas here??

      Delete
    8. I have not read all the comments yet - signd off here last night - but I have read your version of events RP; they just do not make sense. As SF has suggested elsewhere an establishing photo would be useful. I'd like to see two other photos as well - the one you saved just before and just after the image in question. Unless, that is, the part of the story that has you taking other photos - "the loch and scenery" as it states - is incorrect too?

      Delete
  10. The shot could be replicated quite easily with a wetsuit glove and a camera phone. I had to make do with an image that I found on the web so the shape and angle will obviously be different.

    So what do you think it is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you won't say if he lying or not? Okay, you can plead the fifth amendment and all that. I covered this issue of replicating pictures in another blog article. It is easy enough in these online days to trawl thru google images until a visual match is found. You have proposed a theory but have not field tested it, so saying it would be easy should not be accepted until the actual experiment is done. I have already pointed out the issue of the rest of the proposed swimmer not being visible and there is no water disturbance around the proposed forearm indicative of a swimmer's forward motion. Of course, Ricky could confess all and prove you right, but I see no indication that this is going to happen.

      What do I think is in the picture? At this point, I am looking at people's varied theories and see nothing persuasive so far. So I will give Ricky the benefit of the doubt and accept it was an inexplicable object not easily explained by his assessment of the scene before him at that time. Do I think it is the monster? i think it is a candidate in this case, but like in all such photos I cannot prove it.

      Delete
    2. I don't know Jack so I'm in no position to say if he is lying or not.

      The rest of the swimmer doesn’t need to be visible as the majority of the body could be submerged under the water for a few seconds before the picture was taken. Or perhaps a lone wetsuit glove was positioned in some shallow water held in place by a stick/pole. It’s only a suggestion, but in my experience it’s best to rule out any normal explanations first before jumping to other less likely candidates like monsters.

      Delete
    3. So just to be totally clear here Roland, is it the policy of this blog site that any proposed explanation/theory as to how a picture could have been created is only acceptable and eligible for debate, once a full field test has been carried out to back up said theory?
      And if that is the policy can I draw your attention back to the anonymous Americans attempts at faking a photo, which I not only proposed, but also made several visits to the correct location and also the location where he said he'd taken the photograph, demonstrated clearly that the only true location that his picture could have been taken from was in fact a holiday cottage up on the hillside and not a lochside layby, (proved that I think)
      proposed a method, ie the mud deliberately placed on the holiday cottage window, and demonstrated how it is extremely easy to line said blob of mud up with a boat in the Loch and thus obtain a fake nessie photo.
      Thus completing thorough 'field tests', to which your only response to date amounts to a "oh no it wasn't"
      And a...
      "I will respond in full when I have had an opportunity to visit the sight..."
      How many times since then have you driven past the clansman, and how is that full response coming along?
      What iam getting at is "testing a theory in the field" won't automatically bring about an inlightened debate.
      I have heard hundreds of views for and against put forward on this site without the slightest field test.
      I would suggest that it is wrong to call for full field testing of suggestions only when it suits you.
      What's your thoughts?

      Delete
    4. "but in my experience it’s best to rule out any normal explanations first before jumping to other less likely candidates like monsters"

      So how do you rule out a normal explanation such as a wetsuit swimmer? I proposed two observations which you disagree with. Is your theory unfalsifiable?

      Delete
    5. Steve, clearly the lack of field testing is no bar to debate. As you can see, the wetsuit debate is in progress and debates have been on the go on this blog for years. I personally do not accept it based on my observations stated here. Others can form their own opinions.

      My point is that sceptics claim the higher ground when they say they apply the scientific technique. Well, sometimes they do and sometimes they do not as science is all about testing theories. I can understand if people cannot manage to do the tests, but they should not claim it is scientific if they don't. I am judging them by their own stated standards.

      As for you theory and testing about how the 2006 photograph. I replied to your analysis months ago.

      Delete
    6. Glasgow Boy... liking your ideas. Everyone is quick to say what could be done. Nobody is so quick to do it. Oh and.I'm definitely not one of them either! Thank you.

      Delete
  11. Another very quick play with a wetsuit glove image.

    I’m relying on images from the web as I don’t have access to a wetsuit glove. I’m having to adapt them slightly with regard to angle/rotation etc. I’ve blurred the glove slightly although it was originally very lo res anyway. However, I think it illustrates a point to back up my wetsuit glove theory.

    *Copy and past link into your browser to view image.

    https://ibb.co/dD5ND74

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm...Spell Chequer, you cleverly “made” it look like a wet suited gloved hand by manipulating the image. Of course, in your biased attempt to prove your point. And I say this in the kindest way and with all due respect. Not sure if you are a skeptic or just one on this particular pic. To quote you: ”I believe it’s a wetsuit glove, nothing more, nothing less.” - “My theory is... if it looks like a wetsuit glove, it’s probably a wetsuit glove” - “The simplest explanation is normally the best” - “Another quick play with a wetsuit glove image” The pareidolia monster strikes again! Your simplest explanation is, well, too simplistic. Sorry, not buying it. Does it depict a Nessie? I have no idea. Not guessing, comparing with something else or committing myself. But, if it is proven to be as you say, I will accept all the egg on my face I can stand. Yeah. That'll be the day. LOL

      Delete
    2. Does it resemble Nessie, JA? Not any of the head sightings I have ever read.

      And I must say awesome job with the above image SC. I like the way it clarifies that the little fin/scale thing on the "neck" is actually just a ripple in the water behind it...

      Delete
    3. Hopkarma, it has some resemblance to the John McLean sighting for one.

      Delete
    4. Thanks hopkarma, it’s only a theory and my two pictures were very quickly created to show that it may well be a wetsuit glove. That’s the theory that I’m still personally favouring. Unfortunately, Ricky’s screen grab isn’t the best quality. However, as it’s all that we have to work with it. Although, given the circumstances described by Ricky about his phone I suppose we are lucky to have anything at all.

      Delete
    5. Hopkarma: Well, do we really know what a Nessie looks like? But yes, if I let my imagination run wild, it does look like the head and neck of some creature. I remember reading an account of an eyewitness who saw the head close up and he/she said it was “hideously ugly”. Sorry, can't remember what book. And again, using my imagination, this would be ugly.

      Delete
    6. Yes, only superficially Roland, going by the sketch in the your John Mclean article.

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-john-mclean-sighting.html

      Delete
    7. I am specifically referring to the distinctive white highlights and gigantic, trianular eyes; Ido not recall any previous witness describe anything of the sort. Does it appear to have a long neck and small head? Yes, but that is it as far as matching any on record eye witness...

      Delete
    8. Phillips also mentioned a frill along the back of the neck, that's been mentioned by witnesses in the past. As far as head description, it's never been uniform, some have described it as reptilian, goat like, horse like, stalks or horn like projections on top of the head, etc. Add bird like now. It's never the same.

      Delete
  12. Great reply Ricky..breath of fresh air u coming on facing the sceptics.i admit i was a bit sceptical bout u taking fotos with no store space but u explain it well.I admit i thought the story was dodgy but i shud of known better when it was written by that certain newspaper..i think Mr Feltham can vouch for that experience! I look forward to u taking the comparison foto for steve when ur up next.....one question from me... u say u wer taking a photo across the river and realised ud snapped something so was this object close to the river or further out in deeper water.???.thanks Mr Phillips....great to see u coming on here...oh by the way i doubt very much this foto is a sock puppet lol ...cheers ..Roy

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ricky, if the original photo (or best approximation) is sent to me I will enhance it best I can. Photoshop embeds data of alterations, showing any modifications I would make.

    martin.curran@rocketmail.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck to you Martin. I had suggested enhancement in one of my comments when the story hit the blog. I know next to nothing about using Photoshop, but can't one use the posted pic? Maybe not, or you wouldn't be asking for the original. I have a copy of Photoshop, but never installed it, having no use for it. Well, at least I can't be blamed for being the culprit on a fake Nessie photo. Please don't come up with a wet suit gloved hand! LOL

      Delete
    2. Yes John, it can be done, but I'm not sure it's strictly legal without permission, and it is of very low quality. Web files can be very small, and I imagine they are very 'compressed', which means most of the details that can be enhanced have been lost. The original file would be of much more use.

      Delete
    3. Well, I couldn't help myself, I had to find out. I installed Photoshop just for this. Used the posted pic.(what else did I have to work with.) It's now in the public domain, so please don't sue me Mr. Phillips! Played with the enhancement controls: Brightness and contrast, shadows and highlights. Not much can be done. The image is too low quality and the “creature” is just too dark and pixelated. Send it to JPL, they did wonders with the Rines “flipper” pic. Then somebody can retouch it and voila! you have yourself the LNM. Interesting in that what we interpret as a head, that a bony ridge and a protrusion on the snout stand out when twiddling with the enhancement controls. At least to my eyes.

      Delete
    4. I won't sue you! What does it come out like? I'm as interested as anyone to know what it was.

      Delete
  14. Well to be fair to Ricky, I don't think his area of expertise is the Loch Ness Monster.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, let's be fair to Mr. Phillips GB. Probably knows about as much as your average Nessie fan. I would imagine being a tour guide at Loch Ness requires some basic background and a smattering of the lore of the LNM, for the benefit of one's audience, even on the anecdotal tale of St. Columba. Soooo......

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is it just me or can anyone else see thin like protrusions sticking out of the head part when zooming up the photo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gezza, that could possibly be construed as a bony ridge over the eye. Also some kind of protrusion on the "snout" Horn? Paddy "sees" it too. But I noticed that even before he posted, so his observation did not influence me.

      Delete
  17. The "head" of the object looks rather bird-like to my eyes, somewhat reminiscent of a wild turkey. The beaky snout, the eye ridges, even a small horn-like projection on the snout. That's what my eyes see. On the other hand, some turtles can have similar features.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, similar to this other photo:

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

      Delete
    2. There is an "lake monster" puppet that has a distinct bird like beak head that 3rd phase of the moon you tube channel posted as "lake monster attacks diver" or something,but it didn't have that long neck. As for the many things on the head,remember the rinxes " gargoyle head" photo of nessioe?

      Delete
    3. Puppet as you say or CGI, but interesting to watch...

      Delete
  18. What is the issue with the weather?The weather has been bad up there and it forecasts more snow.I think thats what Ricky was saying and not at the present moment ie yesterday and today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weather has been far from bad up here this winter, certainly down at Loch level there hasn't been any lying snow beyond a dusting on a couple of mornings. Not much rain either. Everything has been running as normal. Cold, but the burn next to my van hasn't frozen over yet so not as cold as it can get.
      The tour boats have been running all winter, I think I heard of only one morning when it was too rough to go out. So can everyone stop saying the weather's been bad up here cos it hasn't.
      Luckily .

      Delete
    2. Funny about that weather, innit?

      Delete
    3. It was tipping it down and snowing by degrees yesterday...but nobody mentioned weather. It was almost 3pm on a grey December day in the Highlands, with the sun already starting to go. It's a photo in December, nothing to do with weather, per se.

      Delete
    4. If the creature in your photo is real,then it looks somewhat like the artwork depiction of Arlene gaals book on ogopogo!

      Delete
  19. You basically Wikipedia it and do the basics. It's not like writing a book!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Back to Ricky’s photograph. Where is the rest of the image? The proportions are all wrong for a Mobile phone shot, so it would appear it has been cropped. Can we view the full image?
    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Spell Chequer all your questions would be answered just by reading the article that you are posting comments on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spell Chequer, tell me you are not of these sceptics that never takes notice of anything the eyewitness says?!

      Delete
    2. Apologies, I did read the zoomed screenshot comment. It had slipped my mind and I realised after I had posted my comment.
      Cheers

      Delete
  22. Hey Roland - please ignore the comment from earlier this evening and go with this one instead...

    Mr Phillips invites us all to Google him, and I have. I have linked to a very interesting piece on Ricky below. As for his comment that this photo would damage him financially? How would someone who makes money guiding tours around Loch Ness have his business hurt if he not only happened to capture a photo of Nessie, but while giving a tour?

    Let us not forget, in his own words, Mr Phillips has not claimed he photographed the Loch Ness Monster; in fact he makes it clear that he never said those 3 words, and that when pressed by the press “But do you think it was Nessie?”, he answered that he "simply couldn’t say what it was"...

    https://georgeganitis.com/2018/12/23/ricky-d-phillips-is-not-a-historian/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was musing with Ricky when this link would eventually be published. Didn't you google for his rebuttal thought, hopkarma? I am sure Ricky can defend himself.

      Delete
    2. So Ricky doesn’t have an honours degree, masters or PHD in history? So effectively he is an amateur historian who self publishes his own books. I was under the impression he was a fully qualified military historian. Or at the very least he gives the impression he is.

      Perhaps Ricky could clarify this?

      Delete
    3. Because my business is as a military historian, not as a tour guide. I just do tours for a company and it's mostly all battlefields with some pretty scenery added in. As to the link you posted, that guy George is one crazy stalker... an art history undergraduate who genuinely has an obsession and sends me creepy messages about needing me and things. He can be ignored, but I stooped to write him a rebuttal:

      https://thefirstcasualtyblog.wordpress.com/2019/01/01/ricky-d-phillips-is-not-a-historian-oh-really/

      Delete
    4. Thank you for the rebuttal link Ricky. I have to say it was a good read.
      Cheers

      Delete
    5. This is where my interest in scepticism as a subject in its own right, irrespective of whether a picture is fake or not, ramps up. When the debate shifts from the picture to the person, we move onto more subjective ground. This was driven home a while back when arch sceptic Dick Raynor declared all eywitness testimony from Fort Augustus Abbey null and void when the child abuse scandal broke out. That too me was ad hominem in extremis and pointed to the sad state of scepticism today. Mr. Raynor is the most vocal of critics against eyewitnesses and has no problem in callng them liars at a safe distance. Here is a perfect opportunity for him to engage directly with an alleged eyewitness and ask questions, but also to tell Ricky why he thinks he is a liar.

      Delete
    6. BTW can I call myself a Loch Ness Monster historian?
      How many "likes" do I need to receive this approbation?

      Delete
    7. Well, let's see. 600+ articles on just about every aspect on the LNM, two books published and a third on the way. Yeah, you can call yourself a LNM historian. I'd even venture to say you're an expert on the subject.

      Delete
    8. Spell Chequer - Thanks, I really shouldn't have given him the attention, but George is genuinely stalky. He has followed me over Quora, trolled me on Reddit, and I saw him and each time I showed he was wrong. He cries, reports posts, deletes answers from me and basically wants no reply, only his own assertions. He can't argue a point in real time, because face to face, he loses. Half his stuff here is on Photoshop!

      No, I don't have a PhD. But everything I write is a PhD in effect. I teach double degree final year PhD students... I was past their level when I was about twelve. As to "amateur" well, an amateur works free, a professional gets paid, and I get paid. George doesn't even have a job! And as I put, I bought the rights to my #1 Best Seller from my publisher... George has been told this a hundred times but still believes his own lies.

      I've done military history for twenty years, I have the full support and respect of my peers, academic or not, I've discovered two ancient battlefields from Hannibal and Hamilcar, broke the code in Napoleon's memoirs, uncovered the hidden files and secrets from the Falklands war and proved them. So much of that is still being published but a lot is out there, I've been on TV as s historian over 20 times, on radio over 40, in about 80 publications from academic journals through to newspapers, magazines and more... and ultimately, as my friend Professor Tony Pollard, the top academic in the UK says to me, "You don't need a PhD to be a historian, you just need to be right, and you are. Even I always learn something from you when you're here. No degree or PhD would teach you anything. It would be a waste of time and money for vanity."

      By contrast... George wrote a blog post once. I hardly think he can wail against my credibility!

      Delete
    9. well said Ricky and that puts that to bed one hopes

      Delete
    10. I haven't heard any more out of him, although there's a suspect Twitter stalker on my case who I am beginning to think is him. He's an oddball obsessive who needs help.

      Delete
  23. I would class you as a Loch Ness Monster enthusiast, with superb all round knowledge on the mythical beast. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is a good article. Props to Ricky for wading into the comments here too. I think Ricky is a serious guy though I did laugh when early in the article you said the LNM was a fun myth. To those who try to prove it and the sceptics it's not very fun at all. In fact sometimes it resembles trench warfare.

    I thought the reason behind your uploading of the photo was implausible when I first heard it. Now I accept that. If you get a comparison photo that helps triangulate the position then I'll start taking this even more seriously. It's an intriguing image as it stands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kyle... thanks and yes, I get the "trench warfare" analogy. But until it's actually proven one way or another, it is still, I guess, a fun myth. I think it would be a sad day if they ever actually 100% proved or disproved it. Hey I went looking for a sunken LCVP Landing Craft once which was called a myth in military circles, then we found it with side scanning sonar, got it dragged up and proven... and even then, people said it was a myth or a fake! You'll never please everyone! I'll try to get back to Fort Augustus, right now they're dabbling with going straight through it and on to Urquhart Castle and Inverness. Not much fun with all the snow and ice!

      Delete
    2. "fun myth" mention times two.
      Ding ding!

      Delete
    3. More ice and snow Ricky? I guess you were right all along then about the weather.The way some were talking i thought there was a heatwave up there.

      Delete
    4. "fun myth"...not " fun" at all. (Where's the "myth" part?)

      Delete
    5. I've dropped a clanger, huh? I mean, I've seen it, but it's still a myth. As a subject thatto is... hey, gravity and relativity are still theories, but they're still true! Perhaps "legend" is better than "myth"? I don't know, I find battlefields or sunken ships usually, not monsters. I follow paper trails and ammo counts. Not an expert here.

      Delete
    6. Too many people have seen these unknown animals up close or distant for it to be a "myth,"legend" etc..most likely mystery is an applicable term.
      I think it's at 11,000 now?

      Delete
  25. GB, of course you're a LNM historian, or rather a Nesstorian!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Roland, I've just spent more time than I'd hoped going back through your blog site looking for the response that
    You say you wrote....

    "As for you theory and testing about how the 2006 photograph. I replied to your analysis months ago."

    I can't find any reference to you having ever visited the location after I put forward my theory.
    If I've missed it could you please point it out to me, because I really am fascinated to hear your reply to my analysis "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Roland addresses it here: https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-photographic-problem.html#comment-form but unless you know the focal length of the lens and the film / sensor size then perspective distortion can skew results and it's nigh on impossible to overlay one shot on another and get a match - see this to see what I mean - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)#/media/File:Focal_length.jpg

      Delete
    2. Correct, Petesx, and not having the 2006 camera makes overlays in both my case and Steve's useable but not for conclusions based on small changes. Steve may not accept my analysis because it wasn't "on site", my last opportunity was in Sept 2018, but someone booked me for a guided tour - guess what won the timeslot.

      In terms of a futur visit, it is difficult to decide where to pick the best spots since the foliage has changed over 12 years. I fancy the picture was indeed taken at the clansman and the foliage visible are the trees down below at the pier, but there is no a ruddy great fence in the way! Anyway, that's my speculation on that other controversial picture.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Petersx, I've followed the link you offered and that takes me back to the posts when Roland said he would investigate further.... Its actually his follow up that iam interested in reading. I see in Roland's post today that he still hasn't had a chance to take the photograph to the location and walk around with it until all the features in the picture line up correctly. When he does this he will find that they all converge on the window of the holiday cottage up on the hill, not the clansman by a long way. he will then see that the two trees are still there, and still in the correct place.
      Also it's possible that you haven't followed what my demonstration was trying to achieve, you talk about it being impossible to overlay one picture over another, but I was never trying to achieve that, so all this...

      "not having the 2006 camera makes overlays in both my case and Steve's useable"

      To mean absolutely nothing, sounds impressive like you've found a way of dismissing my findings, but is totally unrelated to my explanation.
      So what I see is that as yet no proper attempt to find an alternative explanation has been attempted, the location has not even been correctly identified by Roland, infact the only piece of evidence on which any explanation has so far been drawn is the photograph and the anonymous report.
      So no investigation at all.
      It seems to me that the same standards of research are being applied to this latest image, one of.. "the witness says it is, so it is" , and no other explanation can be entertained until it is first proven, and then it will be dismissed as the bleating of a sceptic.
      I still look forward to a proper analysis of the 2006 anonymous photo, in fact I can't wait to read it.

      Delete
  27. If I could post a photo on this site Gezza I would show you that there is no snow even lying on the shores of the loch. You have got to go up the hillside a couple of hundred feet before you find even a dusting.
    This morning it was just about white, maybe a centimetre.
    I think you must be thinking that loch ness is down in the borders because that seems to be where the ice and snow is according to the national news. and that's the best part of 200 miles away.
    We have had a very mild winter up here so far this year, and by the way since you asked earlier what the weather had to do with anything, I've told you what it's actually been like up here in response to this comment from Ricky which I thought gave a quite inaccurate image of how our winters been going...

    "When I'm next up I'll try to find my way back there, although snow has cancelled some tours and it's utterly yucky there, apparently. I'll see what I can do, weather and time permitting"

    Tours may well have been cancelled but I don't believe weather at the loch is to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny about that weather, innit?

      I keep pointing this out, as it speaks very loudly regarding this photo (the one RP claims to have taken at Loch Ness) if you are willing to listen...

      Delete
    2. Yes i thought loch ness was in Gretna Green ! ;-)

      Delete
    3. That comment was after, when it actually WAS snowing and tours actually WERE cancelled... now I don't know much about Nessie, but as a historian, I know when someone is deliberately slanting evidence to pour doubt on a case, and this is it. From Livy to the present day, it's prevalent in my industry.

      Delete
  28. Thanks Steve. I must have read it wrong or got it mixed up a couple of weeks back when i thought i saw photos of loch ness in the snow on social media.It must have been another loch.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here you go, found it, this is the comment that iam still looking forward to seeing the result of,

    "Glasgow Boy7 May 2018 at 15:54
    Thank you, I will analyse your research and post a reply anon. That may involve a counter visit to put your conclusions to the test, but certainly an interim reply will be forthcoming which deserves a blog article in its own right rather than more obscure comments. "

    your actually "analysis" & response to that whole (half baked as you called it) theory.
    The link that your character 'petersx' sent me off to turned out to be unrelated waffle.
    If I've missed it can you point me to it please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure why you think I'm Roland's "character" - I've never met him. I was merely attempting to point out the difficulty trying to overlay photographs on the landscape due to perspective distortion and how Roland just might have the location wrong. The link to the other blog post was the only one I could find that might be relevant - thought it might be helpful, obviously not.

      Delete
  30. Oh, & one more thing, (bit of time on my hands today) see you last post here, from yesterday when you said this....

    " I fancy the picture was indeed taken at the clansman and the foliage visible are the trees down below at the pier,"

    Give us a shout next time you pay a visit to loch ness and I will meet you at the clansman and show you that you are totally wrong on that count, and then I will show you how to work out exactly where a photograph was taken from just by looking at it & the landscape.
    That's an easy bit to prove....
    In fact I will show you what to do then follow slowly behind you as you inevitably home in on the holiday cottage up the hill.
    That picture only lines up correctly with the location it was taken from, and that's not the clansman .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you must take up Steve on his offer, GB; it is a fair one. The one who convinces the other buys the pints of ale!

      Delete
  31. Here we go, I shouldn't have to explain this, but I get the impression that it might help.
    How to line up where a photo was taken from... Imagine you are stood right on the curb of a busy main road, look to your right and you notice that all the lamp posts appear to be one behind the other from your angle, you take a photo of this.
    Later, with the print in hand, a lamp post 'historian' tries to find exactly where it was you were stood when you took your picture. If he stands on the other side of the road the lamp posts will not all appear to be behind each other, if he stands in the middle of the road same problem.
    Only when he stands right at the curb will he see it as it appears in your photo. To pinpoint even more accurately your location he only needs to repeat this action of lining up objects in the photo in relation to each other, moving slightly one way or the other along the curb he will be able to pinpoint your precise position. There will be only one exact spot, and that will be known as for argument sake "the place where the picture was taken from "
    And no amount of wishful thinking, or worse, lack of will to carry out such an experiment will ever change that fact. I can't remember the name of this effect, some kind of 'convergence' I would guess, you probably secretly know the Latin name for it & I've been wasting my breathe.
    It only needs to be done once, and to try & dispute the location of said photograph of these lamp posts would be as willfully ignorant of facts as the argument put forward by the flat earthers, and surely nobody would want to be seen as being as stubborn in the face of evidence as that lot.
    Anyway, I hope this helps you whenever you make it to the clansman.
    And I hope this reaches you in time for your analysis of the 2006 anonymous attempted fake nessie photo in your eagerly awaited upcoming book.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ...... Oh, and, where this has baring on my thoughts about Ricky Phillips picture is that as his photo has absolutely no points of reference, no landmarks at all placing it in Loch ness, then I will never be able to confidently use it as evidence for nessie. Hopefully Ricky will take a wide shot from the same spot soon so that we can see more of what he saw.
    (on that point have you been back to the fort yet this year?)

    ReplyDelete
  33. I wanted to present this as a response to the So What Actually Happened section from Ricky; my questions interspersed with Ricky's account. I'm awful at computer stuff, and when I tried to copy RP's words I had html issues; sorry, just my questions then. While I give credit to RP for wading into the discussion, he is very selective in his responses. He attacks some easy targets, ignores/makes up weather issues to tough questions, and praises all who accept his story. Any way - onto the questions:

    The tour guide did not accompany his group on the cruise? Is this usual, or just this time? Can any of these tourists confirm any part of this account?

    You give tours of the Highlands and never checked out Fort Augustus? Is this the first time you did not take the cruise with your tour? And yet you are on a first name basis with the chip guy?

    I am so glad you cleared up that Darth Vader noise thing - everyone knows exactly what Vader sounds like when he sneezes. It is the best part of A New Hope.

    "You got your phone ready to take a picture", right? But then you realized you had taken a picture; when and why exactly did you take this picture? It had already dived under the water, as per your account...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll answer, sure... I've not made up anything about the weather. Or anything else. It's grey. Water, sky, creature... all grey. It was December. The weather was standard December weather. No excuses made.

      No, I have never taken the cruise. I can for free if I want, but never have. When the tourists go, I phone my wife or my Dad and eat something. Yes, I know Fort Augustus very well, I never intimated otherwise.

      As to the picture, easy answer... I wasn't trying to take a picture of a creature in the Loch. It just came up as I hit the button. I turned and saw it, pointed the phone and it didn't appear again. Then I realised I'd already got it.

      Delete
  34. This is why people dont come forward with sightings.Give Ricky some slack and let Roland get up to the clansman to carry out the sighting test instead of picking at him for not doing so.Im sure if he lived in loch ness he would of done it by now.Im looing forward to his test by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gezza, I think you're getting your “Field Tests” mixed up. The Clansman Hotel is not at the Fort Augustus area where the river Oick is located, it's further up on the north shore of Loch Ness The Clansman is the site of discord between Roland and Steve Feltham.

      Delete
    2. Yes i know John.Im talking about Roland doing the test at the clansman for Steve.

      Delete
    3. Sorry i didnt make it clear, what i meant was give Ricky some slack and give him time to get back up there and also give Roland time to get up to the Clansman and conduct his field test.Steve needs to be patient and not expect everyone to be able to drop everything and dance to his tune. Not everyone lives in loch ness.

      Delete
    4. Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about Roland getting to Fort Augustus for the Ricky field test. Duh!

      Delete
  35. Steve's a savage. And fair dos, it's your life. More so than any of us (except maaaaaaybe the tireless GB). Incredible claims require incredible proof and I'm with Steve on that. But I'm also keen for non LNM aficionados to post pictures like this because the likelihood is that a non fanatic photo that will clinch the proof (if indeed there's a monster there). Ricky possibly feels like he's stumbled into a bar room brawl that he has no real stake in. So Ricky, please bare with the questions and the probing. They're important to both sceptics and believers. And it's great to have someone actually engaging with us on such an intriguing matter.

    P.S. I wanted to get this in before GB locks the thread ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kyle... at last! Empathy! Yes, this is exactly what it feels like. You guys all know each other of old! I'm just some dude who took a photo by accident. I didn't realise the sceptics / believers thing existed outside of the flat earth brigade?? It's very in-depth, all this. All I can say, hand on heart, is that it was there, I saw it, and it looks like that. I make no claims other than that, because I don't know what it was. I've never seen one before. It was just... whatever it is in the photo. But hey, I'm like this on bits of the Falklands war or something. Nerdy! I genuinely didn't know it was like "a thing" people would argue over. Seems that was wrong, huh?

      Delete
  36. U gotta give it to GB he neva ducks a challenge or test and he prob will get round to it this year...in fairness to mr feltham i think he is just frustrated cus he has done the test himself and is sure he has cracked it...i look forward to GBs test but after reading up on mr felthams test im with him on this sighting...as simon cowell wud say....he has nailed it!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks Roy, I do believe I've nailed it, Kyle iam not sure if "Steve's a savage" is a good thing or not.
    Obviously iam frustrated about having my two and a half days dedicated to locating & visiting the site, sitting in a car with a blob of mud on the window, lining it up with every boat that passed for a morning, and all the rest that was involved in my investigations into this 2006 fake nessie photo, referred to by Roland as "sceptics half baked theory" & the fact that he said he would come back with a whole blog proving me wrong which just hasn't happened.
    Iam frustrated that he has done precisely nothing to investigate this picture apart from nodding along to the anonymous witnesses discription of events, (which are provably false)
    It worries me most that Roland's latest book will be coming out soon so he says, all about the photographs right up to Ricky Phillips, but how can Roland pontificate about the vertues or otherwise of this 2006 picture if he has not made any attempt at all to actually go see if the story stands up?
    If he only goes by the witnesses testamony then he has none of the truth. and I don't consider it to be clever research to just stick your fingers in your ears and say
    "oh yes it is, that's Nessie" .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What field tests? You have to remember, this stuff doesn't happen under test conditions... it just "happens" and you're either there or you're not. I could sit there for fifty more years and never see it.

      Delete
    2. While we don't think Nessie to be amenable to making an appearance for a field test. I think Steve and GB would still like to establish a location and a broader picture of the area.

      Delete
    3. The problem is,Steve,that there's money in skepticism but nesseyism requires money and Roland has to pay his own way.
      Ask harmsworth or Raynor.
      As to that Nessie mud theory.no way that's a blob of mud.no way!

      Delete
    4. By 'savage' I mean you're hard-core Steve. Rigorous in your need for robust proof. And you're willing to go do on-site research which is great. It's a compliment and it looks like you and Ricky will team up now which is very intriguing. Good luck.

      I can't speak for Roland regarding his approach but I do think he always puts forward a well argued case. More often than not I probably don't fully agree with him but he's a very good researcher and always illuminates. Roland believes very strongly in some more recent images I have zero faith in but he has swung me on some of the older images, certainly left the door open that they may be something mysterious.

      This image is a belter. I think it's either a hoax or something mysterious. If it was a misidentification of another animal we'd have worked that out by now. And if it is a hoax it may not have been carried out by Ricky, he might be a victim. So far he's been open and honest and engaging which is very promising.


      Delete
    5. While Roland has not yet made a determination on this photo..you obviously have,yet you are in consternation that Roland isn't pro-fake( your opinion on the photo).

      Delete
  38. I hear there is snow in loch ness now? Maybe Ricky knew something after all ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Ricky, would it be possible to meet up with you one lunchtime at fort augustus either this week, or next, just for 5 minutes.
    Im guessing you work for Rabbies and you aim to have your party out on the one o'clock boat. Just so that you can show me where you were and where nessie was. Any days fine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve, where are you based? Usually it's the 2pm boat, and no I don't work for Rabbie's. It depends on time, I really don't get much, but I'm around. I usually get something to eat, call the wife and it's straight back to work. Are you close to Fort Augustus? Apologies, I don't check in here often.

      Delete
    2. Ricky,please put up an audio interview of 5 -10 minutes on your lochness monster encounter,I would like to apply reverse speech to obtain more info as to your veracity.

      Delete
  40. "John" tell me how you think that there is 'money in scepticism' ?
    That sounds like utter nonsense to me.
    As to Roland needing funds, Roland has a full time job, this whole interest is a hobby to him, people don't generally sponsor other people's hobbies that's not the way it works.
    'money in scepticism' get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That isn't what I said Steve.Are you sober?
      As for paid skeptics..look into it.i think you will be surprised.
      Also look into snowdens "internet warfare templates" you will be able to see a pattern in certain skeptical comments that repeat with many variations,but repeat none the less.
      With as many witnesses to a large "dinosaurian" animal in lochness, you'd have to be in the Tin foil hat brigade to be skeptical.

      Delete
  41. Hi Ricky, iam based on the beach at the exact opposite end, but I would make a special trip through to the fort to be shown where it all happened.
    The boat trip goes out for an hour so I'm pretty sure we can find enough time to get a quick look at the location, when are you next in town?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Great to see you both can meet up and let mr feltham investigate!! Its bit quiet this year bar one sighting 2 weeks ago so always good to have summit going on!!! Good luck with it !
    ..Roy

    ReplyDelete
  43. Regarding this....

    John Alvarado5 February 2019 at 16:04
    While we don't think Nessie to be amenable to making an appearance for a field test. I think Steve and GB would still like to establish a location and a broader picture of the area.

    Whilst I get the impression that you (John Avarado) have very close association with Roland, and therefore you might be privileged to more information than Roland posts here, I cannot see where you are getting your information that Roland is also asking Ricky to take an establishing photo so that we can see where he was. I got the impression that Roland was happy with the current amount of information I've not seen him ask for a bigger picture.
    You are in danger John of giving the false impression that Roland is asking for anything.
    There is no such thing as "investigation by association "

    Meanwhile, its been over a week now, and I still haven't had any word from Ricky about meeting up, or even just taking the picture himself. Hopefully soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa! Settle down Steve. I have no closer association with Roland than anybody else here. I am not privy to any inside information. And I am not lobbying on his behalf. It was just my assumption that Roland would at one time or another, be involved in an "investigation". On his own of course. It was never my impression that you and he would be allied in any kind of joint fact finding. We'll leave the investigating up to you.

      Delete
    2. I meant "I" in the above last statement. Wouldn't want to speak for anyone else but myself.

      Delete
  44. Hey folks.

    Here's the full version of Ricky's purported 'Loch Ness Monster' photograph. As you can see, he clearly just cropped a bit of log sticking out of the water.

    https://imgur.com/a/v4pmKie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I have blogged this but why is it only 15Kb in size and how did you come by it?

      Delete
    2. I was sent the cropped version by someone who saved it when Ricky accidentally posted the full version. They should be contacting you with the correctly sized picture soon.

      Delete