Tuesday, 30 April 2019

Update on the Ricky Phillips Picture




I was back at the loch a few weeks back and managed to do an onsite visit at the spot where Ricky Phillips took his photograph. I will get onto those in a minute but first the picture below was sent to me by a person by the name of "yeezy man" who also commented "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."

However, it is a tiny 13kb in size and so is not the expected full multi-megabyte image, so I would ask him, if he has it,  to send the full EXIF image so a proper analysis can be done and also explain how he or she came by this image. Ricky Phillips is, of course, invited to offer his comments on this image, but he has already told me it "looks a bit fake". Either "yeezy man" is lying or Ricky is lying, it is as simple as that.



The image above was taken under the disused stone railway bridge at Fort Augustus rather than near the disused wooden bridge further along. As an update, the second photograph was emailed to me and expands everything out with a comment by Ricky himself. No need to say much more and it's good to have an Internet which allows such communications. However, and as ever, Ricky has the right of reply right here.




And here is a third photo sent by Ricky himself of a log at the same spot which does bear some resemblance to the object, though Ricky was not saying if it was his object!




It is probably a bit moot now, but I visited the site as mentioned and took some pictures from the spot Ricky identified. The map of that location as well as the direction of the sun at that time is shown as a yellow line.



I talked to the anglers you can see in the picture and it turned out they were regulars at this spot and so I showed them the photo and they were unanimous in saying it was just a branch. Okay, fair enough, but when I asked if any believed there was a large creature in the loch they all said "No". 



They said the depth of the river reached up to eight feet depending on rainfall and they pointed me to some branches that had washed up on the shore which I pictured below, though they they didn't bear much resemblance to the object in the picture and so were not of much use as regards an assessment. Needless to say, looking for anything from the time Ricky took his photo was a futile venture.




So things may have moved along or just got muddier. Therefore, comments are welcome, but especially from "yeezy man" and Ricky.



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

68 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Well, "yeezy man" has some questions to answer.

      Delete
    2. Which have been answered ...

      Delete
  2. A great follow up. I find it hard to comment on cropped photos and this was no exception. I grew up close to two lakes in the centre of Ireland (although nowhere near as big as Loch Ness) and spent many days swimming and fishing with my late father . I consider myself familiar with freshwater life and boats and wakes as well as logs .As a boy the infamous "surgeons photo" screamed small object close up as the ripples said that to me.It seems there are questions to be answered regarding this photo. My instinct is that it's not looking good. Definitely looking forward to both Yeezy man and Ricky's response s.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seriously doubt we are going to get any more communication with Ricky Phillips. He's had his laugh, and has his story to entertain his passengers on his Nessiepunters tours, about how he fooled those old nessie hunters with a mere stick.. . Suspect he will miss out the ending of the story though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Out of interest did you go looking for the leg of a bridge that matches the one in this latest picture Roland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I only got the latest picture yesterday from "yeezy man". How he/she came by it is the current mystery.

      Delete
  5. Well if nothing else it settles the whole "its a swimmer / diver" argument..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well he did not fool me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Roland, you say
    "Either "yeezy man" is lying or Ricky is lying, it is as simple as that."
    There is of course another option that you may not have considered yet....
    Thay both could be lying.
    I'm convinced that Ricky Phillips is at it, I believe he has deliberately tried to pull off a hoax from the start.
    However there are a few problems with this new image too. Firstly it's size that you point out, but also the line of entry that the water meeting the neck makes is not immediately what I would expect, it all looks a bit like a photo shop job to me.
    But if that is the case, then would it make this photo the first hoax of a hoax?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree, this image has some questions that need answered.

      Delete
    2. maybe Yeezy man and Ricky Phillips are both names of the same person
      Cheers
      Eoin O Faodhagain

      Delete
  8. I agree with Mr Feltham.. I doubt we will be hearing off Ricky again !obvious hoax and not a very gud one lol on a parr with Frank searle's obvious hoax fotos. Least George Edwards foto did look convincing and the lads in Loch tarff lol fair doos though Ricky had sum front coming on here with his bull!!I await the next sighting or foto.. Or maybe the dna results will be the next big news to come from the Loch.. Cheers Roy

    ReplyDelete
  9. UPDATE: New picture added of the alleged scene.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You've nailed it.
    Another hoaxer time waster caught.


    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeez! It's just getting worse for Mr Phillips. Are we allowed to refer to him as a liar yet?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well in the uncropped photo “Nessie” seems to have it's body under the support column. Is that possible? LOL One more to the mistaken identity/hoax trash bin. If Phillips was hoaxing, what benefit to him could there be but possible ridicule and making him a scoundrel. He can't be that dumb. What has he got to gain? Possibly notoriety in pulling one over on those “Nessie nutters”. But then again, not all of us were convinced, well, I was, a little. Till the final verdict comes out, I hope it was just an honest mistake for his sake.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think you may have missed a few of the crucial details here John. He is a tour guide for a bus company called 'Nessiehunters", t hey run mini bus loads of tourists up to Fort Augustus every day from Edinburgh.
    What could he possibly have to gain?
    How about at least half an hour of good material to talk about on the four hour drive for a start. Worldwide publicity for his historical book work maybe?
    Attention?
    And he got to make some nessie enthusiasts look gullible.
    As to the branch, it won't have been under the bridge, it will be much longer than what you can see above the water in the picture, the weight of the water coming down the Oich will have been pinning it to the bridge.
    How do you make this an "honest mistake" how was he possibly mistaken?
    For a start the camera does seem to be able to save images after all, he's in a completely different part of the river, and there's a bloomin great big bit of bridge where the body should be.
    Just how close are you to a final verdict?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure GB has been in contact with Phillips asking him to come forward and explain himself. So far no Ricky. Plenty of time for him to have done so. The verdict is in! He is a fraud a scoundrel and a liar.

      Delete
    2. BTW Good on you for having doubts and suspicion and hinting at a hoax about this whole affair from the start. I think even GB was somewhat taken in by his false sincerity and glibness, never mind me!

      Delete
  14. My original source was the one who sent you the full picture, so no further comments from me. It's obvious that he cropped it from the original photo and then blew it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings Mr. yeezy man."My original source was the one who sent you the full picture" What the hell does that mean? Why no further comments, what are you hiding and what's your stake in all this? So, if you are not Ricky Phillips, where did you get the photo? Simple question. And if you are Ricky Phillips, why continue this farce? You could have left it alone and left us wondering. Was your intention in this a social experiment, an immature prank or a need for attention? Come clean now. Quit the roundabout mind games.

      Delete
    2. The small version of the photo was e-mailed to me by someone I don't know, asking if I was interested in the full photo. After they didn't reply to me for a while, I decided to post it here myself. The next day, they finally got back to me, and I asked them if they could send the full image to Glasgow Boy instead of myself, since I have no involvement in the Nessie community.

      I'm not sure why you're acting so dramatic about this, the evidence that Ricky took a very unimpressive photo and cropped it is right there in the post. I don't matter at all.

      Delete
    3. Well, okay. Thanks for clearing things up. This episode has become a riddle.

      Delete
  15. Hi "yeezy man", thanks for shedding some light on this particular farce.
    There is only one downside to you saying that you will make no further comment, and that is that Ricky Phillips is now able to say to his bus party that he never intended to permanently fool the world, that he was just testing how gullible certain chat rooms can be on this subject, that he always intended to come clean as to what he had done, and that when he did own up he did so in the alias of "yeezy man" .
    Which might be true,
    Which might not bother you,
    We may never know.
    Are you both the same person, putting an end to the debate about this photograph? Currently only you know.
    Is this how we are going to have to leave this?
    ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assure you that Ricky's ego is far too huge to ever admit he was wrong, even under another name. Once he finds out about this post, he will likely be here trying to somehow defend this and never ever admitting he did anything wrong.

      Delete
  16. I'll wait till the dust has settled on this one... Looks very suspect now though. Is Ricky gonna pipe up? Objectively it's all quite entertaining but sadly if it's a hoax it just muddies the already murky waters of the Loch even further.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Another hoaxer exposed. Ricky has some questions to answer. I always favoured the wetsuit glove theory as it roughly matched an existing glove I found online, however, a log requires less effort. Time to ‘log off’ Ricky?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I do think that the quality of modern photo evidence is pretty mundane. Sometimes things just don't look right, like in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He’s on Twitter promoting his book ‘The First Casualty’. He’s certainly not the first casualty of being caught attempting a Nessie hoax and certainly won’t be the last one to try.
    https://twitter.com/FirstFalklands

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, I have been thinking whether to remove the article "Ricky Phillips Replies" as it was meant to be an exercise in eyewitnesses responding to critics, believers, etc. That remains a good idea in principle and I would do it again, pity about the application in this case. It's practically all Ricky's work rather than my words, so is it a case study in hoaxing for future study or just a blot? As Christian Spurling said of the Surgeon's Photo, they read the newspaper, had a good laugh, chucked it away and moved on. So be it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You seem to have removed "Ricky replies" already, I think that's a great shame. It stands as a classic case study in the lengths of lying that a faker will go to. The same happened with the whole "geraint gibson hoax" over on a now defunkt chat room. I thought that was the wrong move as well. His questioning of himself makes great reading. Why do you think people should not be able to read this? I don't understand. I promise I won't take the mick out of any of the comments defending his honesty.... Promise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, its essentially Rick's work. So if he wants it reinstated, I await his yea or nay.

      Delete
    2. I think you should have left it in place as documentation of the Loch Ness Monster story, warts and all. There have been other stories of hoaxers here in the past., who have been raked over the coals. Why give him any special consideration and defer to him as to whether it stays or goes! “The Ricky Phillips Story” would be incomplete without the Ricky Replies article. His exposure would be incomplete without it as to how devious and deceptive hoaxers can be. Does he have any shred of respectability and honor with readers here at this point?

      Delete
    3. I'm with Steve on this one - you shouldn't try to erase history. Thankfully there's the WayBackMachine https://web.archive.org/web/20190330233726/http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2019/01/ricky-phillips-replies.html

      Delete
    4. The word in Fort Augustus is that the hoax was actually played on Gibson by two friends and he came forward with the photographs after believing them.I think this hoax was actually a prank that went wrong, unlike Ricky's deliberate hoaxed photograph set out to dupe the readers of this blog.

      Delete
    5. I agree with Steve. History should never be erased, even if some people end up on the wrong end of the stick, as it were. I had a few go 'rounds with him, and now that I know he was lying his righteous indignation at being called out combined with his pivoting off the question to another shiny thing whenever things got tight is very telling, and very typical of a liar. So it is not just Rick's work - part of this space is the comments. I would like to see them as part of this blog's history...

      Delete
    6. Petesx, "Thankfully there's the WayBackMachine", you do realise I can instruct archive.org to remove it? The point is copyright material and IP, I have had requests from people (including some here) to have material removed which references them and have complied - it is really not always my call just because it appears on my blog.

      Delete
  22. Did he ask you to take it down then?

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's your blog, and as he himself said in his reply he was responding to your invitation to guest blg. So it's your call, not his. He's not going to ask you to reinstate his lies is he?
    But historically it's very interesting.. Important even.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I read it this afternoon luckily before you cencored it, it was fascinating , the power of hyndsight being what they are. He came across so innocent butter wouldn't melt, kept saying things like this, which, as you know, is a direct copy and paste....

    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”.

    Fascinating case study.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Steve, you've asked me to remove stuff about you from my blog .. which I have done!

      Delete
    2. Incorrect biography that implied that I had vacated the loch, yes Roland I did ask you to correct it because it was wildly inaccurate. Don't pretend that that has any comparison with this situation , unless Ricky has asked you to take his pack of lies down then its not the same at all.
      It actually looks to me that if I were in your shoes then Ricky's lies would be fair game to be left as part of history, I'd be more enthusiastic to see it all disappear if I'd made such rabid attacks in the comments section on anybody that dared imply that the liar Ricky Phillips is a liar,thats far more understandable to me.
      whatever you chose to do with this valuable case study of entrenched viewpoints and pseudo investigation is of course up to you, luckily I've now downloaded it for my own records.
      Oh, and in case you ever publish your own actual investigation into the 2006 anonymous American hoax, I've saved that too, just in case you decide it has to be removed when you finally admit that you were hoaxed.
      It's the nature of this subject, some people make fakes, why try to hid that fact?

      Delete
    3. I removed the post without comment on its accuracy. Obviously you disagreed with what I said, plenty have disagreed with what I have said about their views and activities over the years. They don't usually ask me to remove them though.

      I may now consider republishing it in the light of this overall discussion as it was the Dores Inn staff and not me that said you were only at your base a few days a week and I certainly did not say you had "vacated the loch".


      I got new info on Ricky and I published it, so no qualms about owning up there or hiding info. Some you win, some you lose. I am happy to take risks as I do not have a reputation I wish to careflly maintain.

      As for the 2006 picture, you talk as if you have proven beyond doubt it is a fake yet my analysis of your analysis has raised questions in that regard and was published ages ago. Based on my last visit to the loch, I will have further to say.

      Meantime, why don't you get your own currently inert blog going? You haven't published anything for nearly 8 months! How about spending more time on that blog than this one defending the Loch Ness Monster with old/new sightings photos and films instead of spending time on hoaxes?

      So here's the deal, I will reactivate the Ricky Phillips article but also the one you asked to remove.

      Delete
    4. Yeh, sorry about that Roland. I have been away down here in Dorset all week, helping look after my sick old father. Plenty of time on my hands here.
      idle hands make bothering Roland an easy distraction, as they say in Wimborne currently.
      You do whatever you thinks best, I'm sure you will.
      I should be back at the loch pretty soon, and then I will find plenty of things to do to distract me from blog bothering, that's normally much more of a winter hobby.
      Carry on. Over and out.

      Delete
    5. Get well soon to your Dad. I had similar duties a couple of years back.

      Delete
  25. Why remove the Ricky replies Q&A? You make your bed you lie in it. Poor show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not removed now, but if Mr. Phillips asks for his article to be removed, including his comments, what do you think I should do? Keep it there as a show of free speech or respect his property rights?

      Delete
    2. His rights were removed when he agreed to do the interview. Your questions were straight forward and he answered them. He has no property rights over questions he agreed to answer in which we all hoped was an honest fashion. Deleting the interview serves no purpose but to airbrush it out of history. You live by the sword you die by the sword. We are all awaiting his response to the allegations of photo fraud.

      Delete
    3. It wasn't an interview, it was his article framed as an interview, I didn't ask the questions.

      Delete
    4. Seems quite a bizarre way to do it. So who asked the questions? Surely it wasn’t Ricky interviewing himself?

      Delete
    5. I’ve just revisited the blog and I see what you mean. Ignore my other reply.

      Delete
  26. At least we know it can’t be a log as Ricky has assured us it isn’t...

    Question: Is it a log?

    Ricky’s response: 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well if you believe Phillips, it's The "Log" Ness Monster. Yeah, sorry I know it's trite, but I just had to say it.

      Delete
  27. UPDATE: I have added a picture Ricky sent me of a log he photographed at the railway bridge, though he was contrasting it against what he claimed to have pictured.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding the added picture from Richard, he originally stated that his phone memory was full and couldn't really store any new images. All of a sudden he pops up with an image from months ago, presumably from around the time of the hoaxed photo. He must have some reserve phone memory that he forgot about LoL. The plot thickens....

      Delete
  28. Ull always have hoaxes in Loch Ness.. Sum see it as harmless fun...sum not.. Depends on the person! One thing it prooves is that it's hard to pull it off.. Mr Feltham cracked the birdshite and Loch tarff.. A friend of royal scot skipper from wales rumbled George Edwards hump .. and now this one in the river oich..and I believe sumone called Martin on here rumbled the latest attempt by spotting a small powered boat in the Loch which is obviously wats in the Cameron video!each to his own lol but I do think sum people take things too seriously sumtimes... As dinsdale said... Its all good fun lol... Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. When you compare Ricky’s original close up image to an enlarged section of yeezy man’s image they look pretty spot on for angle, size etc. Ignore the quality of the enlargement as this was enlarged about 1000% from the lo-res image on here. It was purely an exercise to judge whether Ricky’s image is just a zoomed in shot of that scene. It looks pretty compelling to me.
    See link for image comparison: http://oi66.tinypic.com/2qbujhs.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, they are both one and the same. No doubt about it.

      Delete
  30. For what it's worth I'd keep all the blogs as documentation. It was always clearly either a genuine sighting or a hoax. May as well delve into it deeply on this blog as a record as to how these things play out.

    Well done Ricky. You had your chuckle.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is getting a bit confusing - when did Ricky send you the photo you added May 3? And photo 3 is clearly not the same spot, or taken from the same spot, as photo 2...

    ReplyDelete
  32. I just went back to review the Ricky Phillips Replies article and lo and behold yeesy man had posted there explaining the source of the “full version” Seems it was an unknown third party. I didn't quite understand what he meant by “My original source was the one who sent you the full picture” Me thinking, as others have, that he was one and the same and insinuating that he might be Phillips posing as yeesy man playing mind games. This was very confusing to me, but I think I know what's going on now. I think. So for now I think credit should be given to yeesy man and “unknown third party” for bringing this to our attention and exposing Phillips?

    I mentioned earlier that maybe Phillips had made an honest mistake and thought that what he saw in the photo was a live creature. But no, he explicitly says “I went to take a shot across the river, heard a noise... 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… “ No question that he claims he actually saw a “live” creature diving under water with his own eyes rather than after the fact in reviewing his pictures. Big lie then, no? And finally, his last statement “you’re never doing the wrong thing if you know you’re telling the truth.” Except, you're not telling the truth Mr. Ricky Phillips! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  33. In addition. You see why it's so important that this article be preserved GB. One can actually go back and see what Phillips has said. He hangs himself with his own words. But I'm sure that if you do remove it, you will always have access to it. Here's a suggestion for others: Cut and paste it to a word processing app for your future reference, if it is removed from this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Any word from Ricky? Looking online to find out more about him there's that well written blog about how he's a complete fraud as a historian - what excuses did he make discrediting that again? Made compelling reading. This article is the second online link to him. What's happened to the calibre of Nessie hoaxers? In the 30s it was movie stars, in the 70s it was crazy Frank Searle and now it's an (allegedly) fake historian. Nessie deserves a better class of hoaxers ;)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why do people do this? Ricky now seems childish and untrustworthy. Who wants to be thought of in those terms?

    ReplyDelete