Monday, 18 February 2019

Preview of the book "Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster"




My third book on the Loch Ness Monster is now published and can be purchased at these links for Amazon USA and UK. From the first photograph taken by Hugh Gray in November 1933 to the most recent by Ricky Phillips in December 2018, dozens of pictures are recounted and analyzed and pseudo-scepticism is confronted on the written page. Having said that, not all photographs have made it into the book and those may yet await a future and final publication. Indeed, there are pictures that may as yet be unknown or lost to sight, especially those from the 80s and 90s.

The subtitle, "The good, the bad and the ugly" denotes three types of photographs of the Loch Ness Monster. The good ones which genuinely portray the large creature of Loch Ness. There are the bad ones which are natural objects misinterpreted and then there are the ugly ones which are the products of hoaxers and fakers. I may not necessarily state what I believe to be good, bad or ugly and note that the dismantling of so called sceptical arguments is an analysis of them on their own merits or demerits.

Now by way of preview, I include an excerpt from the book concerning the Roy Johnston sequence of pictures taken in August 2002. Let me just say that these photos were, in my opinion, subjected to a masterclass in pseudo-sceptical debunking and as a consequence rejected by many in the cryptozoological community. It is now time to take a fresh look at them and those who sought to destroy their credibility. Let me quote from pages 299 and 306 of the book.


EXPERTS say an amateur could never have taken the remarkable pictures. Independent snapper John McLellan claims the pictures were almost certainly taken using a tripod. He added: "The background is the same in each of the eight frames."

The third objection I will now address concerns the statement that the sequence of images suggests the use of a tripod rather than the situation Mr. Johnston describes.  This is not a cogent argument which becomes apparent if you watched the animation sequence I produced from the thumbnails. If you watch how the hillside changes throughout the sequence, it is obvious that this is not the product of a tripod solidly taking the same background throughout as the opposite hillside judders by 13% horizontally and 3% vertically. 

Roy Johnston said he took the pictures from the camera hanging around his neck. Now take a look at the animation below produced from the eight images Roy Johnston took in total. Since the animation cannot be printed in a book, it is appropriate to reproduce it here. If this is the product of a stable tripod, then I marvel at the strange logic of these critics. More to the point, did they lie or were they just lazy in their assessment? You can make your own minds up on that one. Either way, these so called experts do not come out smelling of roses.



You will also notice the splash at the end of the sequence which many took as the creature re-entering the waters. That is actually not the case and does not seem to have been picked up by the various critics at the time. The splash is in fact some metres ahead of the last visible position of the creature. Compare the various positions of the creature and splashes against the hill in the background. This would suggest the animal merely slipped into the water and the splash is in fact tossed up from some subsequent and invisible underwater motion.

You may also note that the progression of the creature as it submerges in comparison to the hill takes it on a course to where the splash eventually appears. That would appear to be a strange thing to do if it was an alleged CGI overlay sequence.

I will say more about this sequence in my book, but this was an argument confidently put forward by Dick Raynor when he allegedly assessed these pictures. He dogmatically stated other arguments against these pictures which made me wonder how equally fragile those arguments were? You will find out more about these and the hatchet job employed by the gutter press in my book.

So, if you feel you have benefited from this blog over the years, then show your appreciation by buying this book. Have an enjoyable read!


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com


51 comments:

  1. Well I just may have to buy the books, if I can't find them in any library. Reasonably priced for a cheapskate like me. Get free shipping for two or all three. The Roy Johnson series of pics sure suggests an animate object when viewed as a gif. I've seen a blowup of the head/neck and darn if the “head” doesn't resemble the Phillips pic in shape.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another book to add to my ever growing collection..ur books do add something different i do say GB..Best photo of summit large in loch ness is the one on page 17 in the booklet loch ness and inverness by colin baxter in my humble! On to the johnstone foto's u do make a good argument on these..ur sequence put here does look convincing of summit coming up and going down.after reading dick raynors take on this i was convinced it was a hoax ..but u do make me think again..though im suspicious of a link dick made with johnstone and mr gray who took similar photos at loch ness!! I look forward to getting ur book...cheers Roy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gray-Johnston explained in book.

      Delete
    2. Dick has sour grapes due to his new job which he hates.

      But dick is one of the best researchers on Nessie.
      I feel he believes in a large animal in the loch.Only a believer would put in the many years dick has in Loch Ness.

      Delete
    3. Great stuff..nice to have two sides of the coin to help make up ya mind!! The gray photo is very much alike though so it does bring out suspicion i have to admit. I look forward to reading it though.

      Delete
    4. According to John, that would be a paid Skeptic. LOL But seriously, I think Dick is, as far as I know, a tour boat operator, consultant on things Nessie, the opposing viewpoint of course, diver ( freelance?) and who knows what else he does for a living.

      Delete
    5. I don't get it. The other Gray photo that Roy alludes to. Did I miss that one? And is it exactly the same as this one with same background location? If not it has to be the same creature at another time and place.

      Delete
    6. Roland,how much for all three books?

      Delete
    7. "I don't get it. The other Gray photo that Roy alludes to. Did I miss that one? And is it exactly the same as this one with same background location? If not it has to be the same creature at another time and place."

      You missed it indeed, taken in May 2001 by James Gray, it gets a chapter in my book and is a long neck shot. Search google images for "james gray loch ness" and you will see the long black 6ft neck.

      Delete
    8. john, all 3 books are 41 pounds sterling.

      Delete
  3. *subjected to a masterclass in pseudo-sceptical debunking and as a consequence rejected by many in the cryptozoological community.* That's understandable. Most hard core pseudo skeptics want to see a carcass on a slab in a morgue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And they shouldn't show their faces until one turns up!

      Delete
  4. Roland,please post an Amazon link to your book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The links are at the top, click on Amazon USA or UK.

      Delete
  5. Coming right up..but first I'll need a fifty foot slab that can support a 45 foot 8 ton muscular animal!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Did you have to pay to publish the snaps or are they out of copyright/ in the public domain ?
    I remember Dinsdale getting sniffy when O'Connor ( or was it Cockerell ) wanted a huge wad to include the snap in Tim's latest book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whwn it comes to a paid book, you have to seek permission to reproduce and that means a combination of talking/negotiating with the original picture taker, their surviving family, the agent or the newspaper. Even then, not all owners can be found despite a good search.

      Delete
    2. I hope Ricky Phillips wasn't "sniffy" But, he must have his own huge wad, what with being a historian, writing books, tour guide and television appearances. Nice :)

      Delete
  7. NOTE: Further text added to article on the splash seen in the animated sequence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah...good thing you picked that up GB. I assumed it was the splash/spray of the creature “diving” a la Alex Campbell's big splash sighting. Could the splash be fish or something else fleeing the scene in panic?

      Delete
    2. I think the splash is too big for fish.

      Delete
  8. Looks an excellent read Roland - ordered and hopefully arriving tomorrow - cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have just read up an article on this photograph sequence and it says one of the middle photographs was a different colour and contrast to the others.Surely if this is right they cannot be a sequence of photographs? What is your opinion of this Roland?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have not got the book so can you give me your opinion here Roland. I hope there is a genuine answer as to why one photograph is a different colour to the others, because its nagging at me,although i find the photographs very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Its not just the diffrent colour in question...didnt mr raynor say the days were wrong..the weather was diffrent plus there is no lay by were mr johnstone said he took the photos from?? Very suspicious im afraid for me...but not to dwell on one photo im sure there are plenty of intrestin stuff in the new book and maybe one or two of the photos might even be of the resident tulllimunstrems !!! ..cheers ..Roy

    ReplyDelete
  12. Talking of photographs,Adrian Shine has just been on television on the Secret Scotland programme showing a couple of old nessie photographs.When it comes to loch ness there is no show without punch, its the same old boring drivel he comes out with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Secret Scotland Programme”? Gezza, it sounded to me like a plan for the safety and security of The Loch Ness Monster until I Googled it. Anyway have a look at these stories:

      Scotland's plan if Loch Ness Monster is caught

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12085193

      England once had a sinister plan to kidnap the LNM. Now it's getting silly!

      https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/10/england-once-plotted-to-kidnap-the-loch-ness-monster/

      Delete
  13. Having just read Dick Raynor's analysis, he does bring up some interesting points and draws some suspicion. Of one thing he can agree on is that the objects in both the Gray and Johnston bear a “strong similarity”. Hmmm... I don't know about that, similar, yes. Strong or identical similarity, no. I would even go as far as saying that the Johnston pic hints at more of a “head” and smoother in contour than the Gray pic. Agreed that it does show an “neck” type object. I await to read GBs explanation in his book

    According to Dick Raynor:

    1 Photo taken in July, not August.

    2 Absence of lay-bys from which to have an unobstructed view of the alleged photo location.

    3 Weather conditions not in agreement for the day of the sighting and photo.

    3 The possibility of collusion between James Gray and Roy Johnston. Even suggesting that Gray is the
    taker of the Johnston photo.

    http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/gray.html#johnston



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dicks just earning his pay.he's a hard worker.
      Adrian shine too.And harmsworth...not sure about feltham.

      Delete
    2. Steve has his modelling business and I suspect he is busy fielding litz of tourist queries during the better months. We all perhaps hunker down a bit during the winter.

      Delete
  14. Yeah John sum serious questions there to be answered if these photos can be taken any further..im familiar with that area and the lay-bay question by Dick is a good one..i look foward to GB's answers and as a believer in something sizeable n the loch i hope he can find the answers but have my doubts! As for mr shine i think he shud be cut sum slack as he is very experienced in this mystery and i met him briefly once and he was a nice chap and had plenty of time for my questions lol same with Dick Raynor..nice bloke and took time out to meet me once and answer sum questions. They both have time for believers and non believers though i agree i wish mr shine wus stop harping on bout the old hat surgeon photo haha!! Maybe the one from 2001 shud be studied more ..its far more convincing.cheers ...Roy

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello everyone,this is a bit off topic but I think it might be of interest to people who frequent this blog. I have just been listening to Malcolm Robinson the man who went down in Loch Ness in a mini sub to a depth of 500 feet. He said below about 100 feet the water becomes clear,crystal clear in his words.

    If this is the case I think underwater photography might still be of value.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not off topic at all. We are talking about Nessie photography, and the chances for a good picture. The topic of this article.

      Delete
  16. this is very novel, and goes against the long held accepted view that the water in loch ness is extremely murky and light only travels a few feet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Malcolm describes his submarine adventure in his Monsters of Loch Ness book, that needs checking.

      Delete
    2. I also held the view that the water in Loch Ness was extremely murky until I heard this interview with Malcolm Robinson. Here is a link to the interview,the Loch ness section starts at 41:25 and the clear water comment is at 47:00.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cz6KIW5F5c

      Delete
    3. Hello people,I am not sure about the link to the Malcolm Robinson interview that I provided as the numbers and characters seem to have changed,(that is probably me messing up). This link seems to be correct,the minute count is unchanged.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0ESETFGL0I

      Delete
    4. Sounds like there's a “Goldilocks Zone” in the strata of the water. The trick would be to lure a Nessie into that zone for crystal clear, no doubt about it photos. It all goes counter to the known conditions, what with the fine peat. But if he says so then so be it. Somebody will have to check that out. He blames tourists for most of the mistaken identities, which is probably true They wanna see the LNM, they see the LNM Ha! Ha!. Okay, some of them could be genuine. Another guy that thinks it's a strange big fish. Hey! It's still up in the air, don't get mad at me.

      Delete
  17. Just finished reading the new book, Roland. Much stellar research and reasoned commentary, pro and con. I only wish the photos were printed on more appropriate paper - I know it would cost more. You said once that at some point you're just going to put the books online, and then the resolution (and the luxury of being able to magnify the photos to full screen by the viewer) will be much better. It particularly affects both the Crosbie and Rowe photographs, as well as being able to see the Hugh Gray Heron-Allen glass slide print at it's absolute best. I still think that's the most convincing pic of the animal and it should be seen in the best resolution possible. If price were no object - I understand the conundrum. . . . Anyway, well done. A huge contribution to the literature. best, Md

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, remember to post a review on Amazon.

      I was upfront about the print quality, a glossy section was not possible and there are over 200 figures, photos and drawings! Check the online document I refer readers to for best quality. The Crosbie image suffers a further issue in being scanned from newspaper print.

      Delete
  18. If Malcolm Robinson says the water is crystal clear at a certain point so far down then he is talking through his backside im afraid .

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello Roland,
    I have just started to read your book 'Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster'. In the first chapter 'The Hugh Gray Photograph' you discuss shadows and reflections. It is correct to say that shadows will alter size due to the Sun angle but reflections remain perpendicular to the object producing them regardless of the sun angle.Think of the water surface acting as a mirror.

    I agree with you that it is not a Dog or a Swan but whatever the object is it seems to be creating a reflection. I don't think a shadow would be seen on a water surface.

    I am enjoying what I have read so far, congratulations for producing a book which will be a welcome addition to my library.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jack. Just to show I do acknowledge work done by those on the "other side", I picked up on the matter of shadows vs reflections from Dick Raynor. In this Gray picture, any shadow is out of sight behind the creature. My thinking is that Hugh Gray took the picture more looking down the loch than across it.

      Delete