Follow Up on the George Edwards Photo

As stated in my last post, things have moved forward on this story as resident monster hunter, Steve Feltham, has unearthed evidence that may well prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the picture is a staged hoax. According to the Daily Mail (link still not up), Steve was told by a friend that the picture looked a lot like a fake hump he had owned.

The friend in question was from the crew which included Marcus Atkinson who captured that well known sonar hit of Nessie last year and won the William Hill 2012 award for the best Nessie picture.

Steve got a hold of the hump and took some pictures to show to the Daily Mail that there was indeed a case to answer here. The picture is shown here with permission from Steve's own Facebook page which I recommend you visit to get his whole story on the case (as well as his general views on Loch Ness and its famous creature).

The Mail quotes Edward's response to this accusation:

"I stand by my picture. It is genuine. I took it in November as as far as I am concerned it constitutes the latest sighting of the Loch Ness Monster."

Once again, the statement that a "number of shots" were taken is mentioned in the article but again no attempt is made to show this sequence which would help Mr. Edwards in his case.

The hump is about ten years old and was used two years ago for the "Truth Behind the Loch Ness Monster" documentary made by National Geographic. Steve says that at 5m47s into this documentary you can see the hump on George Edwards' boat (frame below) and again at 6m54s in the water.

Here are two stills from that documentary of the hump with the Edwards hump last as a comparison. Make your own mind up on whether these three images are of the same object.

One therefore presumes that the picture was actually taken at the time it was used by the documentary crew. It is not clear whether at that time it was intended to be used as a hoax or was just a playful snap. 

On this subject, another seasoned Loch Ness researcher, Dick Raynor, was in touch with me and he estimates that the object in the picture is about 20 inches long at a distance of about 9 metres (assuming a camera height of two metres). It seems these numbers are in the same ballpark as the model. You can check his analysis of this and other aspects of George Edwards and Loch Ness at this link. It is a very detailed page and worth the read.

Again I invite Mr. Edwards to offer a full response and perhaps let us see these other shots of the object. I believe in the right of reply - my email address is shimei123@yahoo.co.uk !

POSTSCRIPT

Steve Feltham was interviewed by Scottish Television with the prop viewable at this link.

Various Items of Nessie News

Well, the old saying "There's no such thing as bad publicity" may often seem to apply to the Loch Ness Monster. The story of George Edwards and his Nessie photo continues to go viral and has finally reached the exalted shores of the mainstream American Media as this item from ABC News shows.

People just love to tune into a good old monster story and they don't come much bigger than the Loch Ness Monster. The article I ran on the photo has now received hits in the thousands and is my own biggest blog article since March. Should I thank George Edwards for heightening Nessie awareness? I am not sure about that ....

Attempting to dig deeper into this latest story is proving somewhat fruitless. The one lead is that two separate sources talk about multiple pictures but don't show them. I am sceptical about that just now but I sent off an email to Cascade News who are syndicating George's photograph. Their own website only shows one picture of the object so I suspect that is all there is to it but I await their response.

I have sent off another email to George Edwards but still no reply to the questions I originally put to him. Going by his interview on ABC, it sounds like the world has arrived at his doorstep and I suspect I am way down the pecking order!

 I must also add that after posting this blog, I strolled into my local newsagent and saw the front page of the Scottish Sunday Mail proclaiming they had evidence that George Edwards had faked the whole incident (see extract below and click to enlarge). I haven't seen this article on their website but if it doesn't turn up, I will post more details. But suffice to say the accusation is that Edwards used an old Nessie prop from some documentaries to stage the picture. George Edwards denies everything but judge for yourself. The fibreglass hump does look indeed like the object in the picture though I must also admit the two are not exactly the same shape. The object in the picture slopes more to the front than the model.

Moving onto another item, I understand that Jeremy Wade of "River Monsters" fame is filming a new series and he is going to Loch Ness for one episode. My only reply is "about time too"!  I wonder what stance he will take as he tries to land Nessie with a fishing rod the thickness of a fence post? Perhaps the Sturgeon or indeed the Wells Catfish or the oft talked about Giant Eel? Certainly, when he tackled the reputed monster of Lake Iliamna, the sturgeon came to the fore. Well, I guess we will find out when the series goes to air - presumably next year.

Talking of next year, 2013 will be the 80th anniversary of the Loch Ness Monster. It was back in May 1933 that the first modern sighting of the creature by the Mackays was written up for the Inverness Courier by the late Alex Campbell. It is amazing that the beast still continues to hold the attention of people after so many years and even in such a current sceptical environment. Does this speak as much to the "I want to believe" as to the actual existence of something large and unknown in the loch? The answer is "yes" to both.

Wouldn't it be great to mark this milestone with some kind of event? Again, the answer is "yes" and it is my hope that some kind of event will be organised that covers the spectrum of thinking on the subject and does justice to a now venerable tale. Well, all I can say is watch this space!

The Loch Ness Monster Swim

The Loch Ness Monster Swim gets underway on the 18th August with hundreds expected to take part in order to raise money for the Marie Curie Cancer Care. A worthy cause but you would have thought that the Jaws-like promotional picture below would have deterred some from taking part!

I have probably said it elsewhere but fatalities due to carnivorous Nessies are unknown and it is not the type of evidence I would desire to see either. However, a recent comment on the Inverness Courier comments section may make one think again. A person by the name of "David" made this comment:  I was sitting by the loch a couple of years ago and there were three birds floating along on top of the water. I watched them dive down for food and for the life of me never saw them come back up. What could have eaten them, is there pike in the loch? I've heard that pike will eat ducks. Who can say, perhaps one bird could be taken by a reasonably large fish, but three? Anyway, since the Loch Ness Monster is mainly a bottom dweller, I am sure the swim will be a great success.

The World's Oldest Loch Ness Monster Document

Anyone with an interest in the Loch Ness Monster will tell you that the earliest account of the monster was by Saint Columba sometime in the 6th century AD. The story itself has been repeated countless times in books, magazine and newspaper articles since the early days of Nessie fever in 1933. Even the latest Nessie story can't help but stretch back nearly 14 centuries to make a mention of it.

But today I want to bring that bit of Nessie history a bit closer to its ancient times and instill in you the almost timeless mystery that is the Loch Ness Monster. It is in fact the earliest copy of Adamnan's account of the life of Saint Columba. This manuscript is believed to have been written during Adamnan's lifetime or shortly after which places it late 7th or early 8th century. The library itself says the document:

"is the oldest surviving copy of Adomnán of Iona's Life of Columba, and undoubtedly its single most important witness.  It was copied at Iona during (or shortly after) Adomnán's lifetime, and is also a splendid example of early medieval insular bookmaking, having been colorfully described by E. A. Lowe as embodying the 'pure milk of Irish calligraphy'"

In times past, only the privileged and academic few would have been able to gaze upon this most rare of Loch Ness Monster documents but thanks to scanning technology and the Internet, it is now available to view to all. The document is hosted by the Virtual Carolignian Libraries of St. Gall and Reichenau (the former monasteries which held such documents). The actual physical manuscript is held by the Stadtbibliothek in Schaffhausen, Switzerland.

Now going to the above link presents a Latin document in a beautiful but difficult calligraphy which makes the task of finding the story a challenge. However, after some digging about, I have found the two relevant pages that relate the tale of St. Columba and the monster and they are reproduced below.

They are located on pages 74 and 75 and the story begins with the red text at the bottom right of the first page with a reference to the "aquatilis bestiae" or water beast. If you then go over to the right hand column and look down to the fourth line you will see the words "fluvii" and "nesa" which refer to the River Ness. The account ends on the right hand column of the next page prior to the next red words. I won't reproduce the entire Latin text but the english translation is below.

OF THE DRIVING AWAY OF A CERTAIN WATER MONSTER BY THE VIRTUE OF THE PRAYER OF THE BLESSED MAN.

At another time again, when the blessed man was staying for some days in the province of the Picts, he found it necessary to cross the river Ness ; and, when he came to the bank thereof, he sees some of the inhabitants burying a poor unfortunate little fellow, whom, as those who were burying him themselves reported, some water monster had a little before snatched at as he was swimming, and bitten with a most savage bite, and whose hapless corpse some men who came in a boat to give assistance, though too late, caught hold of by putting out hooks. The blessed man however, on hearing this, directs that some one of his companions shall swim out and bring to him the coble that is on the other bank, sailing it across.

On hearing this direction of the holy and famous man, Lugne Mocumin, obeying without delay, throws all his clothes except his under-garment, and casts himself into the water. 

Now the monster, which before was not so much satiated as made eager for prey, was lying hid in the bottom of the river ; but perceiving that the water above was disturbed by him who was crossing, suddenly emerged, and, swimming to the man as he was crossing in the middle of the stream, rushed up with a great roar and open mouth. 

Then the blessed man looked on, while all who were there, as well the heathen as even the brethren, were stricken with very great terror; and, with his holy hand raised on high, he formed the saving sign of the cross in the empty air, invoked the Name of God, and commanded the fierce monster, saying, Think not to go further, nor touch thou the man. Quick! Go back! ' 

Then the beast, on hearing this voice of the Saint, was terrified and 'fled backward more rapidly than he came, as if dragged by cords, although before it had come so near to Lugne as he swam, that there was not more than the length of one punt-pole between the man and the beast. Then the brethren, seeing that the beast had gone away, and that their comrade Lugne was returned to them safe and sound in the boat, glorified God in the blessed man, greatly marvelling. Moreover also the barbarous heathens who were there present, constrained by the greatness of that miracle, which they themselves had seen, magnified the God of the Christians.

Needless to say critics attempt to dilute the account on the grounds that it occured in the River Ness and not Loch Ness and that saints were encountering fabulous beasts left, right and centre. I address these objections in my book and mention two other stories of Columba and the Monster which are not so well known and place the beast firmly in Loch Ness itself.

I would also note that a few modern sightings of the creature have occured in the River Ness. But I don't think anyone is suggesting these should be discounted because they did not happen in Loch Ness!

In summary, it is a bit awe inspiring to see such an ancient document from the Dark Ages make mention of our favourite cryptid. One wonders how the monks who painstakingly created this manuscript would react if told the very creature they wrote of would still excite the imagination 1,300 years later?

Edinburgh Talk on Loch Ness Monster

Charles Paxton will be giving a talk entitled "The Vital Statistics of the Loch Ness Monster" on the 17th August at 8:30pm as part of "Skeptics on the Fringe 2012". However, I suspect the talk will not be as sceptical as we may think. Anyway, if you can make it, head along to support Charles in his latest analysis of Nessie sightings. I hope to be there myself.

Further details can be found here.

A Nessie Article from 1934

Paul Cropper (hunter of the Australian version of the Bigfoot called the Yowie) sent me a scan of this article from the Salt Lake Tribune of January 14th 1934. Though the image suggests a bit of tongue in cheek it is worth a read and shows how much interest the new subject of the Loch Ness Monster was generating even afar as the state of Utah in the USA. The catalyst for this article was probably the Hugh Gray photograph which had appeared a few weeks before.

Note the early emphasis on the view that the creature was a sea serpent that somehow found its way into the loch. That notion eventually gave way to the dominant theory that the creature had somehow got into the loch much earlier, perhaps thousands of years earlier. I have no opinion myself on when Nessie first took up residence in Loch Ness but certainly prior to Saint Columba which was over 14 centuries ago.

The document can be viewed here. I must admit I like their rendition of Nessie attacking some bekilted Scots amidst a loch full of empty(?) whisky bottles!

The George Edwards Nessie Photograph

(Once you have read this - you can read an important follow up article here - Ed.)

Having spent a week camping in the Kingdom of Fife, I come home to a new alleged photograph of the Loch Ness Monster. It would therefore be remiss of me not to comment on this latest image, not just to add it to the blog's history of Loch Ness and its unfathomable inhabitant but also attempt to wade through what is being said about it.

This is the account from the Daily Mail.

He has dedicated more than two decades of his life to the hunt for the elusive Loch Ness monster, spending 60 hours a week on the water. And now George Edwards believes he has finally fulfilled his ambition of spotting 'Nessie'; he even photographic evidence to prove it. Mr Edwards, who has spent 26 years on his quest, managed to capture this image of a dark hump slinking in and out of the lake's waters from the deck of his boat, Nessie Hunter, before it vanished back into the deep. He claims the picture is the best-ever taken of the Loch Ness Monster and proves once and for all that the elusive leviathan exists - and is definitely not a sturgeon.

He says he has even had it independently verified by a team of US military monster experts as well as a Nessie sighting specialist. Mr Edwards spends his life on the loch - around 60 hours a week - taking tourists out on his boat Nessie Hunter IV, and has led numerous Nessie hunts over the years. 

'I was just about to return to Temple Pier (in Drumnadrochit) and I went to the back of the boat which was facing the pier and that’s when I saw it,' said 60-year-old Mr Edwards, a lifelong believer in the monster.

'It was slowly moving up the loch towards Urquhart Castle and it was a dark grey colour. It was quite a fair way from the boat, probably about half a mile away but it’s difficult to tell in water.'

After watching the object for five to ten minutes, Mr Edwards said it slowly sank below the surface and never resurfaced.

'I’m convinced I was seeing Nessie as I believe in these creatures. Far too many people have being seeing them for far too long,' he said.

'The first recorded sighting was in 565AD and there have been thousands of eye witness reports since then. All these people can’t be telling lies. And the fact the reports stretch over so many years mean there can’t just be one of them. I’m convinced there are several monsters.'

Steve Feltham, who has dedicated the past 21 years to hunting for Nessie was unequivocval. 'It is the best photograph I think I have ever seen,' he said. From his base on Dores beach and has studied many Nessie sighting photographs.

'I think the images are fantastic - that’s the animal I have been looking for all this time,' he said yesterday.

'I would say it doesn’t prove what Nessie is, but it does prove what Nessie isn’t, a sturgeon which is a fish that has been put forward as one of the main explanations as to what Nessie could be but this hasn’t got a serrated spine like the sturgeon.'

Mr Edwards attempted to use his vessel’s sonar to make a contact but to no avail.

'I hung around for a good half-an-hour and used the deep scanning sonar to try and pick it up, but I’m afraid I had no luck at all.'

Mr Edwards took the photo at 9am on 2nd November last year on a compact Samsung digital camera that he always keeps on the boat.

Before releasing it publicly he sent it to the USA for analysis, though he can’t reveal further details. 

'I did not want to mention my sighting until I was sure that I had not photographed a log or something inanimate in the water,' he said. 'I have friends in the USA who have friends in the military. They had my photo analysed and they have no doubt that I photographed an animate object in the water. I was really excited as I am sure that some strange creatures are lurking in the depths of Loch Ness.'

I actually was informed of this photograph by a local man back in May when the photograph appeared on a postcard sold by George Edwards from around Easter which is shown below and tells us a bit about George's Nessie hunting history.

The pictures marked 3 and 4 are the one of interest whilst picture 2 is of the cruiser boat that George Edwards (in picture 6) employs in his tourist trade. Picture 5 reminds us of George Edward's other claim to fame which was the alleged 1989 "Edward's Deep" which he claimed registered a record depth of 812ft in Loch Ness (as opposed to the accepted 754ft). This reading is disputed and has not been officially recognised.

Picture 1 is of another image allegedly of Nessie in its single hump aspect taken by George Edwards on the 6th June 1986 at about 7am to which we shall return.

Some years prior to all this, George had been working on a Nessie book called "In Search of Eioch Uisge (The Water Horse)" which had been mooted for publication in the late 1990s but so far only extracts of it have surfaced on the Internet. This is a pity as it would have offered some insight into a person who has claimed to have seen the creature up to 19 times.

Three claims against the pictures are made. The first that the sun could not be that high at 9am on the 2nd November. The second is that the object is much closer than the claimed "half mile" and the third asks why only one picture was taken if the object was visible for up to 10 minutes.

On the first point, the shadow on the enlargement below does suggest to me that the sun is on the opposite side to the south east though on that day the sun does not rise until 0720. A look at the picture shows that the castle's north west side is darker than the rest which is supportive of this idea. It is not readily apparent from the picture whether the sun is low in the sky or this is just cloud reflection.

The sun position on that day and time are shown below. From the red marker showing the probable site of the incident, the green line points to sunrise, the yellow to where the sun is at 9am and the red line is sunset.

On the second point, it has to be admitted that the object is not half a mile away. In the top picture, you can see Urquhart Castle which is about one mile away from the stated position at Temple Pier. To the bottom left of the picture you can see an object which is undoubtedly part of the boat he is on. Based on that, I would guess the object is much, much closer. However, George Edwards is rather non-committal on the distance which given the alleged analysis by military experts is rather disappointing. They said the picture shows an animate object (though no wake is unambiguously visible) which leads me to ask George if I could see a copy of their analysis.

But there is actually a concentric ripple around the object which can help estimate distance. It is just about visible on the outer edges of the zoom in above. As you may know, a circular ripple seen at an angle can appear elliptical. The "flatness" of the ellipse can allow the angle of observation to be calculated and if the height of the observer above the water is known, then so can the distance to the object.

The ellipse has a ratio of about 12:34 (0.35) which suggests an angle of observation of  about 31 degrees. If the observer is standing 3 metres above the water then a bit of trigonometry gives a distance of 5 metres (another study emailed to me suggests 13 metres).

Witnesses being accused of being vague or wrong about dates, times and distances is part and parcel of media reporting of theses stories and I personally regard them as of secondary importance. I say that after recent experiences of newspapers getting some facts wrong. It always seemed strange to me that a witness would lie about such things. What is to be gained from such a stance especially as George Edwards himself is well aware of the depth of questioning that is applied to modern photographs purporting to be of Nessie.

The third point about why further photographs were not taken may seem an irrelevance but the context for asking such a question is the idea of motion. If the object was indeed moving slowly towards the castle, then a sequence of pictures would not only show this but reinforce the case for the images being genuine (as a sequence is harder to fake). 

If one were a sceptic, the case may seem closed at this point, but I would like to hear Mr. Edwards address these points before making further comment.

On a more serious note, I said I would get back to that 1986 photograph. Dick Raynor worked with George Edwards for some years and said this about the earlier photo at his website:

"Passengers on George Edwards Cruise boat "Nessie Hunter" will also be familiar with the  photograph he took in 1986, now available for sale on the boat for 50 pence.  I remember him telling me at the time how hard it had been to drag the water filled tube out of the back of a van and down to the water before it was towed out into the loch!"

If that is true then Mr. Edwards is in serious trouble. However, as with the scutter about distance, time and number of photos, I invite George to exercise his right of reply before the matter is settled.

But if we lay these things aside and approach the picture from the opposite direction, what can we further say? The first thing is that the object appears rather flat along its presumed spine. What this would indicate I could not tell. There is a general reddish brown colour to the object but with a darker ridge running along the top. The general shape in my opinion is not suggestive of seals, deer or otters.

The wave patterns around the object strike me as being interesting. There is a general pattern of waves washing in from the loch towards the photographer in a line roughly parallel to the horizontal axis of the picture. However, there is also some unique wave formations around the object.

I mentioned earlier the just visible concentric ripples which is more suggestive of a stationary object bobbing up and down than an object moving towards the castle. But water is a complicated medium and the complexity of interpreting waves can get too much if multiple forces are acting on the water. Indeed, if this was a fake Nessie tethered by a buoy, I may have expected more concentric ripples reaching as far as the boat, but that is just speculation on my part.

The bottom line is that this picture raises more questions than it answers and until Mr. Edwards helps out by answering some of my questions, then this picture needs to be treated with caution.