I recently came across some issues of "Animals and Men" published by the Centre for Fortean Zoology which is run by veteran monster hunter, Jon Downes. It was issue 35 that caught my attention with a series of photographs allegedly of the Loch Ness Monster. I think it was published in early 2005, though there is little details about when these pictures were taken. Jon says the following in that issue:
A couple of months ago the CFZ were e-mailed several pictures purporting to be of the Loch Ness Monster. The person who sent them did not leave a name and did not reply to e-mails requesting further information. The sender said that they had taken the shots from a lay by above the loch. They had been driving along and saw something in the water. They pulled over and took three pictures before the creature disappeared.
The pictures seem to show an object with the classic "Nessieform" shape, a humped back and snaky neck. A road is clearly visible in the background as is a buoy. Richard Freeman showed the pictures to the gentleman who took the Loch Ness film shown on our website.
He believed them to be fake. Firstly the angle at which they are taken is too low to be from a lay above the Loch. They look as if they were taken from a boat. Also the width of the visible water is to slight for it to have been taken from were the witness said it was.
So there it stands. Without further information there is little we can do but it appears that, like several recent pictures of "Nessie", that these shots are fabrications.
I asked Jon about these pictures, but he says he could no longer remember anything about them and he could not find the originals in his files. Moreover, three pictures are mentioned but we have only two. The quality of the pictures are poor due to the print process and I suspect the originals looked better than what we are left with here. So we have various unanswered questions which I would prefer to have answered before forming an opinion.
Aside from obtaining better pictures (perhaps Richard Freeman could help), there is the mystery person who gave their interpretation that these were dubious due to the alleged angle of view versus where the observer was meant to be. You can see a navigation buoy beside the alleged creature and that looks like one of the buoys photographed below which are at the narrow top end of the loch at Lochend. That would be consistent with the closeness of the opposite shore. However, the text says a road is visible on the other side, but there is no road along that opposite shore. The analyst of the pictures also claims the loch is not wide enough to match the stated location.
These buoys I think are no higher that six feet which would mean the alleged creature is showing about ten feet out of the water if it was as distant as the buoy. That could translate to a potential overall fifteen feet of total length. There is that classic long neck and single hump to this picture with the other picture showing the presumed neck almost submerged.
So, can we find better versions of these pictures plus the third unpublished image? Who was the person who had previously filmed the monster prior to 2005 and was deemed a suitable person to analyse these pictures? Until we can get some further information, I will suspend judgement on these photographs from fifteen years ago.
UPDATE
Further information from Richard Freeman of CFZ suggests the object in the photographs is indeed of the fifteen foot size suggested and is long necked with a single hump, but it is man made. I refer to "Lucy the Plesiosaur" which was an animatronic plesiosaur created and used at Loch Ness in that timeframe of Summer 2005. The model was used in a Channel 4 documentary which I now recall watching from that time and was swum in front of various people to note their reactions. Here is a BBC article on the subject dated August 2005.
The model allegedly sank to the bottom of the loch, which reminds me of the photograph below which had a parallel monster model history.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Good catch.
ReplyDeleteIts one of those situations where you wonder how much investigation was done after receiving the images. Did he go to the suspected site and check the location out?
If they're fake, then the poor quality surely defeats the purpose of sending them in for the glory of it all. Or are they intentionally poor quality because most pictures of Nessie are poor quality anyway.
Nothing to see here folks but some photographs that look as if they were taken in the 1920's
ReplyDeleteThese are not the original photos but scanned from the magazine. When you look at other photos in the CFZ magazine, I expect the originals to be a lot better.
DeleteIf i remember correctly i was e-mailed the pictures and asked for an opinion. I told the sender that the pictures had no context and may not even be teaken at Loch Ness. I said it was probably a hoax using a model. As it turned out that's just what it was. It was operated by frogmen plesiosaur from below. It was used in a truly dire 'documentary' that stated that if the Loch Ness Monster exists than it must be a plesiosaur and as plesiosaurs cannot live in Loch Ness then the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist. Great logic there, the money wasted on that load of old cobblers could have been spent looking for the Tasmanian wolf, the orang-pendek of the giant anaconda.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. there was an anamatronic Nessie out in the loch around 2005. I remember the Channel 4 documentary which did it. I would still like to see the original photos - do you have them?
DeleteWas that the chanel 5 one.. Loch Ness monster the ultimate experiment??
DeleteIf a foto is too good it can't be a large creature...if it is too poor it can't be a large creature.. A no win situation ive found in my humble nessie research over the years ....if u see what I mean lol... Cheers x
ReplyDelete"The person who sent them did not leave a name and did not reply to e-mails requesting further information..."
ReplyDeleteWell done for getting to the bottom of it all but that's your first giveaway GB. Anything anonymous really has to be chucked back in the loch.
I'm not sure that all anonymous reports should be dismissed although I agree they are less valuable than those by identifiable witnesses. In the 1970s, a work colleague of mine and his wife were on holiday and visited Loch Ness. As he knew of my interest in the subject, he confided in me that they had seen a dark object of about 15 feet in length moving across the loch then submerging. He told me not to tell anyone else as he did not want people thinking he was " one of those nutcases who believe in flying saucers, little green men and the rest of it." I have no idea if what he saw was an animate object but he was someone of total integrity who believed he'd seen a living creature. I'm only recounting this to demonstrate it is possible for possible witnesses to have genuine reasons for remaining anonymous.
DeleteChris Morris
I agree Chris. I have met such people myself
DeleteMe too ;) But the issue is proving the sucker and particularly if they don't respond to GBs follow up questions it's almost always for a good reason. However... I can't deny it's not intriguing. But it's just another one of the frustrating aspects to the mystery that winds me up.
DeleteAnonymous reports shudnt be dismissd!!! In fact we have a new one sighted last Tuesday between Fort augustus and Invermorisson and a fotograph to go with it.. The man wants to remain anonymous though he is local and has years experience of Loch Ness and says he was always a big sceptic until last Tuesday.. Very intrestin... Cheers.. Roy
ReplyDeleteIs this Ross McAulay Roy,a forestry worker? The account is on Facebook, detailing his sighting. It's recorded on a mobile phone apparently,but I haven't seen this. Kayaker's were in the vicinity and the creature moved very fast against the wind. Described as about 12 feet long, light grey colour and just below the surface.
DeleteI got this from Beasts of Britain group on Facebook .
I agree Roy but they HAVE to be owned at some point. We're heading into an era where very good digital fakes will be able to be made with software available cheaply (in fact we're there right now) and we don't want to just accept anonymity at face value. The truth is that a good image would be worth thousands to the owner which would generally not be aligned with the motives of someone anonymous.
DeleteNo it's a different one! There has bin 3 sightings in last couple of weeks and all roughly in same area.. Think u can find it in the Inverness courier online! Think it was reported yesterday and sighting was last Tuesday.. Cheers
ReplyDeleteI saw the story which Roy mentions with the accompaning picture. No big deal and inconclusive as usual. Interesting in that the witness states “It was long with two distinct fin-like shapes either side of it.” Sounds like an eel to me. There's your Giant Eel. Here's the story. Follow the link to the Inverness Courier
ReplyDeletehttps://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/09/skeptic-believes-he-photographed-the-loch-ness-monster-in-another-new-sighting/
I can understand people not wanting publicity, ridicule can be an awful thing. I have no problem with people staying secret about their sightings and they dont have to come forward at all, its personal choice, no matter what era we live in.
ReplyDelete