I have been invited to speak on the Truth Proof live stream podcast with Paul Sinclair. This will go out live on Thursday 7th April at 7pm GMT followed by a Q&A session as people chip in with their comments and questions for me. Feel free to tune in and make your own contributions. The discussion is expected to be wide ranging across various Loch Ness Monster topics, but will be partly listener driven. Perhaps we will get to hear of some previously unheard of Nessie sightings?
Go this link on YouTube where the livestream will take place in two days. See you there!
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
I'll be there!
ReplyDeleteGreat two hour show Roland. Good to see you talking, rather than a hear a disembodied voice. You covered just about everything anyone would have liked to know about the LNM. I was hoping you would bring up the Roy Johnston and Ian Moncton pics and you did! Glad we agree that two of the best photo evidence for the existence of the LNM are the Hugh Gray and the Johnston pics. Also glad you were humble enough to admit that you have been wrong in the past regarding photo and other evidence and had the integrity to admit it. The Ricky Phillips fiasco comes to mind. I was sucked in by that scoundrel big time myself. He now shares a special place alongside Frank Searle.
ReplyDeleteI'll catch up with this when I can GB.
DeleteJohn - Phillips' image was slightly intriguing initially but good grief his story was aaaaaaaall over the place. I respect GB taking things at face value before researching deeper but that was never off to a good start in my jaded eyes.
My only issue with the Gray and Johnson images is not their veracity - both show promise. But in that they seem to show 2 completely different creatures. Gray's is closer to a turtle and Johnston's seems to show something squid-like or possibly the neck of something long and graceful. I prefer Gray's image as proof but that's entirely just personal taste of course.
Yeah, I agree Kyle. The Gray photo has many interpretations. Some see a fish or eel head on one end. some see hints of appendages. Others can't decide which end is head or tail. And of course some notable skeptics will tell you it's a swimming dog with a stick in it's mouth. A big LOL there But the fact of the matter is that it shows something unusual. There is too much blur to make any conclusive judgment. And too bad we don't have a wide shot showing foreground or background topography to give scale and context. My interpretation is an animal with the tail at the left and the head/neck on the right where all the blur is. One can imagine a large animal desporting itself and rolling around on the surface hence the overall blur. Plus the box camera Gray was using suffered from a “slow” lens which contributed to all that blur.
DeleteAs to the Johnston pic, a long graceful head on a neck plunging back into the water. Perhaps as it tries to snag a fish? Take that image and the corresponding long neck something of the Rines 1975 underwater image, which I also believe to show a living creature and you come close to establishing the true morphology of our monster. The long neck is the most common, classical feature reported throughout the history of eyewitness sightings and now corroborated by the Johnston and Rines Images. No long head/neck, no LNM in my opinion.
Nice summary John, I also believe the Rines pictures show an animal, OK, it may have needed a wee bit of tweaking but I still believe it shows a currently unknown to science living animal.
DeleteThe Gray photo is really compelling, when Roland fist pointed out the head to me, from that point onwards, I became convinced that this shows this animal.
Oh, and the interview was fascinating as always Roland.
You mean the Rines body pic?
DeleteApologies, Yes, the body pic. I still hold out hope that the 'head' pic is real too, but I do agree that this one is more likely to be something other than an animal.
DeleteI don't know about the about the "Gargoyle" head pic Latman. I think it was proven to be a tree stump. I do wish the "Flipper" was proven to be genuine!
DeleteIn Roland's "Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster" book, there is a link to an online animation of the Johnston pictures. When shown in sequence quickly, it looks almost like a film, and is very compelling. My initial thought when viewing the individual photos is that the neck is too thin and the head is clearly defined, which seems to go against most eyewitness accounts of the head and neck being one continuous thickness. But unless Johnston designed some mechanical model, which seamlessly bends and submerges AND produces a splash, we may indeed be looking at the best photographic proof of the LNM.
ReplyDeleteI think they are genuine.
DeleteHi Roland, with your permission where can we see this animation of the Johnston pictures?
DeleteThe Gray photograph could be a giant eel.
ReplyDeleteThe face on the right appears to be just that!
DeleteNessie caught on sonar again? My only question is why two or more aren't ever imaged together. There cant be just one. But that's another mystery.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/tourist-spots-loch-ness-monster-on-sonar/
Some sonar traces may show multiple contacts.
DeleteI think a giant eel would be a loner,maybe thats why.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that accounts for all Nessie sightings, but do think quite a few of them!
DeleteI was referring to your question on why there is no sonar images of 2 together. A giant eel would be a loner i guess so thats why we only have single images coming out.
DeleteWell that's a very antisocial giant eel then.
DeleteHmmm I predicted last year that when spring arrived and the cruise loch ness started regular tours they wud pick up large sonar contacts in the 'Invermoriston' area of the Loch.... Lol.. Cheers
ReplyDeleteThey've been picking up contacts for years ...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSonar contacts have been picked up in other areas. It is not just the Cruise Loch Ness boat.
DeleteHi GB,
DeleteYes I know what your saying is true, but the Cruise Loch Ness boat has been remarkably lucky of late, in the same general area, that's all I'am saying.
Yes they have and sonar contacts hav bin had for many years.. And I have no doubt that some of the contacts in the past are of large creatures!! But whilst some boats with sonar go couple years without a contact its strange that three or four similar contacts are had in 'exactly' the same place in a couple of years!! This has never bin done before...Hows u Eoin?? Nice to see ur still watching the loch on them webcams.. Hope ur well!! I will be back at the loch in July.. Roll on.... Cheers
DeleteAre there any schools of fish, such as salmon, that could make that image though on a sonar?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLooking at the image how do we get a size of 30 ft in length? This image is not as big as the first image we had 2 years ago and that was said to be 15 ft in length by the sonar expert. If you look at the latest image you can see another smaller one above it to the left and another high up against the red rock. I think we are just looking at images of large fish , a ferox or large salmon maybe.
ReplyDeleteJust read your latest blog, are you only taking comments on Facebook now?
ReplyDeleteNot yet, I will sometimes turn off comments here.
Delete