Sunday, 2 March 2014

Jonathan Bright on his Loch Ness Monster Photograph

I have already covered Jonathan's picture taken in 2012 in a previous post. But Jonathan now brings his own story and thoughts to the table in this blog posting. He has also put up an accompanying YouTube video (below). Jonathan delves into the paranormal aspects of Nessie theorising, of which I am sure there are plenty of advocates. I used to believe in this theory (since I believe in paranormal phenomena in general), but have since decided to pursue the biological side of things. 

Of course, we hear of strange things going on around Loch Ness which are suggestive of such things. We read of the strange events that Tim Dinsdale recorded which were not Nessie related (I would love to see that journal). Also, Ted Holiday's strange goings on surrounding the 1973 exorcism of Loch Ness also raises the eyebrow.

Though Jonathan brings in the magician, Aleister Crowley, it is a fact that monster reports and legends preceded his arrival at Loch Ness in Edwardian times by a long stretch. But paranormalists may argue that what ever "portal" attracted Crowley there, was the same progenitor of Nessie. Indeed, it is a bit unclear why Crowley selected Boleskine House at Loch Ness. The house configuration he demanded could have been fulfilled in any number of areas, but why this particular area?

Interesting questions, but again, just at the edge of reality's peripheral vision. The hunt continues, I hope to be at Loch Ness in about a month's time!


  1. Burton Caruthers2 March 2014 at 06:52

    Here's a link to an interesting read on the matter of paranormal goings on at the Loch. I've read other things that say Ness is some sort of magnetic center, but I've had trouble finding the articles again. Some very fascinating theories have been put forth, and it makes you wonder. Loch Ness has been a place of strangeness for a long time.

  2. I think this is just a wave but it would be nice to think its a reptile coming up for air! Im Just thinking what if these creatures did just pop their heads up to take in air , how many people would see them ??? Just a thought.

    1. Nessie is a water breather to me. Any breaking of the surface is mainly accidental (when she bothers approaching the surface).

    2. Hello G B.
      head and Neck sightings don't seem to be accidental in breaking the surface.And how do land sightings fit in with this picture.

    3. Well, I am not sure it is a real head/neck, but I don't have a coherent theory on that yet.

      Land sightings constitute only about 2% of the overall record, so they are very much the exception. The reasons for the LNM exposing itself to the surface (above or out of water) usually boils down to one of the four Fs : fight,flight,food and ermmm fancying another Nessie.

  3. Airbreather / waterbreather?? It is said only amphibians can do this. But some sea snakes can breathe through their skin so who knows. And if these creatures are nocturnal then maybe they sleep during the day and can generate enough oxygen through their skin.

    1. Eels and other fish can leave water for short periods.

  4. Or should i say hold oxygen in their skin. I dont think they break the surface by mistake GB,all creatures do things for a purpose. But who knows eh? Some turtles can stay underwater for 5 hours! ?maybe these creatures can stay longer and are nocturnal hence the evening and morning sightings. I still go for reptiles .

  5. Interesting! Got back from Loch Ness last night (no sightings, sadly - will of course check through the photos carefully) but when we met up with Dick Raynor talk turned to Dinsdale's paranormal experiences, and even to Crowley. It's fascinating stuff, but I don't think Nessie-related.
    Dick took us out in the hope of having a look for that yacht that may have sunk of Inverfarigaig around 1883, but the weather got too rough so the waves were interfering with the sonar readings, meaning we couldn't meaningfully search so returned to Urquhart Bay. Still, was great to have a crash course in identifying stuff underwater on sonar, trees, a dinghy and even the remains of Robert Rines's equipment.

    1. Do tell more.

      Dick is a willing man to help researchers/hunters who turn up at Loch Ness. Pity about the weather.

    2. If I remember correctly, Jonathan Bright is a paranormal researcher and investigator of all things mystical, so it’s not too farfetched for him to go down the paranormal path and make that connection. I also believe in the paranormal, somewhat, but I don’t buy the Nessie as phantom theory.

      To Ben Chacko: what was Dick’s response to the latest musings on this blog, as to his “position” on the nature of the Loch Ness phenomenon? You said you’d ask him.

    3. Well, to answer a couple of things.
      GB: Dick remembered Dinsdale having had a terrible fright while sleeping on a boat moored off Foyers, when 'they' came onto the boat. Dinsdale never described what 'they' were to Dick and maybe was unable to. But was certainly sincere and frightened. On Crowley, we discussed how he had kept seeing things out of the corner of his eye disappearing around the house. But I doubt these incidences have anything to do with Nessie.
      On Dick's position - he reads this blog from time to time so I can't really talk for him! But he made a point when we met up of reviving the phrase Loch Ness 'phenomena' and not 'phenomenon' which was of course included in the 1950s investigation title, and has said to me that he has by no means come close to explaining all the unusual phenomena at Loch Ness and probably never will.
      We should be careful about who is being closed-minded here. In discussion of some Irish sightings I referred to Henry Bauer, whose Enigma of Loch Ness I consider one of the best books on the subject, and his point that some of these Irish lakes 'would hardly be a bath for a single Nessie.' Dick told me that fair enough but 'people saw things at these lakes and we need to find out what they saw. You have to give people credit.' I realised I was being more dogmatic than a sceptic; he was taking the sightings more seriously than I was.
      That's not to say I don't think there are large unidentified animals in Loch Ness. I do. But even Mackal admitted that most reported sightings were mistakes, and serious sceptical challenging of all the evidence is an asset in my view. When Dick finds something we'll know there bloody must be something because his standards of proof are, quite correctly, very high!

    4. Apologies if this is a second post. I wrote a long reply, and when trying to file it it disappeared with a 'comment should not be empty' response and was unable to recover it.
      GB: Dinsdale apparently talked of things coming onto his boat when he was sleeping on a boat off Foyers. He was shaken by them and frightened. And Crowley apparently saw things disappearing around the corners of his house. But I don't think these things have anything to do with Nessie.
      As for Dick's positions he is best placed to put them himself! But in my discussions with him he has said he is not close to explaining all the unusual phenomena at Loch Ness - and the plural is important because we are talking about phenomena and not a single phenomenon - and probably never will be.
      I was struck by one thing he said last Friday, when discussing sightings of monsters in Irish lakes. I referred to Henry Bauer whose excellent book makes the point that many Irish lakes with reported monsters aren't big enough 'to make a bath for a single Nessie'. Dick said well, people saw these things and we have to give them credit and that's why we should consider alternative explanations to sightings. I realised I was being the closed-minded one, thinking only of animal explanations and then ruling out sightings because an environment couldn't supposedly support them. Mackal is clear that most sightings are probably mistakes, so I don't think it means you're 'anti-Loch Ness monster' if you accept that.
      To quote Dick again: 'Something strange is going on in these lakes' (we'd brought Okanagan and Champlain into the discussion by then). So, while I believe there are large unidentified animals in Loch Ness (and Morar), I don't think we can see the position of a sceptical expert like Dick as opposed to that. He is trying to identify the phenomena which remain unexplained and his approach is extremely valuable; I would have great confidence in a new sighting by him for example because I would know he has ruled out most non-animal explanations and if he's convinced we all should be!
      Sorry to carry on at length. Hope I answered the question.

    5. This sounds like the incident Tim Dinsdale described to Erik Beckjord, but with less detail. This story is a bit of a mystery itself.

      Yes, we need sceptical analysis, but when people like me find flaws in the sceptical arguments, they are just ignored.

    6. Thanks Ben, I guess that pretty much clears up the mystery of the enigmatic Dick Raynor, in my mind at least. It took me a while to finally figure him out. Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” You can’t fault Dick for being too stringent in his requirements. As mentioned before, he’s been there, done that. At least he leaves the door open to possibility. Unlike Binns and Campbell who insisted that there was never anything there to begin with, wrote their “conclusive” books, then went on their merry way. Dick is a skeptic of a different sort and is here for the long haul.

    7. I thought my first post had been lost so wrote the second one - you could have censored it GB! Now I look like a repetitive idiot!
      I understand your point, but I don't think Dick Raynor does ignore your findings. On some things, yes - he complained that 'when I say something is a wave, Roland expects me to replicate the wave but waves are like snowflakes, they're never the same'. I think Dick has a valid point there. However it was his suggestion to look for the boat that sank in 1883, though the weather stopped us from doing so, and that was a lead he said had come from you. I love this blog and the reanalysis of photos on it, but would say he's right just as much of the time - me and Faye (my closest friend who has been my companion on Loch Ness trips for the last 10 years) both thought the Jonathan Bright photo was probably just a wave before we ever spoke to Dick about it, and we're both confident in the 'monster''s existence.
      Similarly I don't quite get defending the Lachlan Stuart photo which to me doesn't look like an animal at all ( though if as Mackal reckons it's three separate animals it's slightly more convincing. But only slightly).
      Just to ask, on MacNab I also have doubts. Your article on it is excellent and I think it is a photo that has not been seriously debunked. However, you say no-one has noted that the photo provided to Mackal is a crop of the photo provided to Whyte, but I thought that was Mackal's entire objection: that the negative he was given had less in it in than the original photo and a negative can't contain less info than the photo that emerged from it.

    8. I don't expect everything to be readily reproducible. One example is deer or otters crossing a road in a heat haze (as some have suggested for the Spicers sighting). But waves?

      Okay, the LS photo may or may not be true, the main thrust of my four articles was to show that the Frere testimony had inconsistencies. That is the main argument often offered against the photo and I don;t think it is watertight.

      Experiments with hay bales is also a two edged sword, but I covered that in my 4th article.

      The MacNab picture is more certain for me.

  6. He overdid the artful whitewater swish around the photo shopped monster head.less is more!!

  7. Geordie Sceptic4 March 2014 at 09:38

    Frankly I'm just embarrassed at the thought of anyone not recognising this as a clear wave. It's like the other waves nearby, it seamlessly blends with the surrounding water because guess what - it IS water. What next?

    1. What next? Going by the comment above you, even that anonymous sceptic does not agree with you. Come back when y'all agree on what it is!

    2. Geordie Sceptic4 March 2014 at 13:41

      I don't care if other sceptics disagree with me. It's a wave. Show me even one photo ever taken of an animal where its head blends with the water into a wave-like shape in that way, it's just not possible. Additionally, the boat must have been over that very spot about 2 seconds before the photo was taken, no animal could survive that unhurt. It is quite simply one of a number of similar waves, it even lines up nicely. Even the photographer accepts it could have been a wave!
      This photo being put forward as a monster has me rolling my eyes to the ceiling.

    3. Both the 'hoaxing' and the 'wave' scenarios are discussed at large in the 9,000 word text that Glasgow Boy has linked to this post. If for some reason you insist on making the same suggestions then your should try replying to all the arguments presented there, rather than simply tell us what is so 'obvious' in your wise and experienced eyes...

    4. Geordie Sceptic5 March 2014 at 05:34

      Well GB, will you now post my earlier reply please? And I'm afraid to say that 9,000 words on a highly partisan website do not convert an obvious wave into a lake monster.

    5. "It's a wave."

      Dogma or opinion?

    6. I am still trying to figure out why you are here, Geordie Sceptic.

      You obviously think this blog spouts nonsense and you may have figured out by now that I have no intention of becoming a "non-believer" in Nessie, so what's the motivation for being here?

    7. Geordie Sceptic5 March 2014 at 12:00

      Good question. You explain your own approach here as reclaiming Nessie against the tide of scepticism (or words to that effect). Consequently, you seem to set out to "prove" that every single photo or video out there shows a Loch Ness Monster. You literally seem incapable of ever looking at one of these images and suggesting it shows a misidentified normal phenomenon or is a hoax.
      This - as we can see - gets you a lot of supporting comments from believers. It is much the same here as a religious community, where belief without proper evidence is accepted unquestioningly. A scientific approach would never set out to prove each image shows Nessie,which is the angle you come from, each and every time.
      Your site - though inherently totally biased - is now, in some quarters such as Bright's site, being held up as some kind of scientific analytical source of information. Yet the arguments you put forward are riddled with inaccuracies, contradictions and false assumptions. A classic contradiction here is the notion that a Nessie surfaces where a noisy motorboat engine churned through the water 2 seconds before, yet elsewhere we read that Nessies are terrified of noise and immediately dive if they hear it.
      Not for one moment do I think I could convert you into a non-believer. You approach your subject with a religious fervour, with no possibility of entertaining the view that there's no monster. I'd have as much chance converting the pope to atheism.
      So why am I here? Well, in the age where literally thousands of people can stumble across a site like this, I think it's imperative that all sides of the arguments are available for people to read. It's plain wrong for people to read example after example of your "analysis" without proper critique.
      If you decide to start censoring voices like mine, then you are demonstrating a fear that your articles don't hold up to scrutiny.

    8. Hmmm, lots of sweeping generalisations here. Where to start?

      So I can't accept some photos or films are fakes or misidentifications? That statement alone shows you have not fully read this blog and are making this up as you go along. But then again, I don't expect you to read the full 300+ articles. I accept the Surgeon's photo is fake, the 1977 Shiels photos, the Rines 1975 gargoyle head as a tree stump. The list does not end there. Many pictures are inconclusive, I say so in other articles and do not commit to them.

      Unlike you, I do not feel the need to apply this to all photos.

      As for "religious community", that is because I accept eyewitness testimony as evidence - you don't. It's evidence - despite the often half baked attempts of sceptics to explain them away with crazy explanations.

      Riddled with inaccuracies? Your own example is flawed itself! How did you come by this 2 second gap? My own calculations suggest 6 to 9 seconds based on a distance of 30-40m and a top speed of 10 knots (though undoubtedly it was slower).

      Tell me how your analysis of the photo came by two seconds?

      So the creature is (in my opinion) heading away from the boat and has only briefly broken the surface. In other words, it's not hanging around to take in the boat.

      The idea that the creatures are "terrified" of boats is a bit of an exaggeration on your part, they generally avoid them, but that does not mean one may not appear near one.

      And my site is biased? of course it is! All sites be they anti or pro monster are biased to their own views!

      Now how about giving us some proper analysis and not sweeping generalisations?

      As for censoring, don't worry, you will leave out of boredom or frustration eventually. I have fielded your genre for over three years on this blog, I have no qualms or fears about handling your "analyses".

    9. Geordie Sceptic5 March 2014 at 14:31

      To take your points one by one:

      You may sometimes accept the closed cases are fakes, but every new and/or ambiguous image has to be a monster in your eyes.

      I apply my view to all images? Why am I so interested in that tourist video? I can't explain that, and I made that clear. It needs further analysis (by scientists).

      Religious community - yes, based on the blind acceptance and desire expressed here for non-believers to disappear and be labelled as trouble makers and agitators.

      My 2 second estimate was nothing more than a rough estimate. 6 seconds is equally relevant to my point. You have screwed up yourself, even when writing a long and analytical article, such as when you overlayed 2 photos to demonstrate a size comparison, when said photos were clearly taken with very different focal length lenses! Very weak analysis, but I wonder how many of your followers spotted it?
      The point about fear of noise has been mentioned several times. As has the notion that surfacings are rare and brief. Yet the extended Dinsdale film shows a monster?

      So you're biased and proud of it? Fine, but that is an admission that your site is unscientific, and your analysis always sets out to only prove one side of the story.

      My analysis is here for all to read.

      Censoring? You've already been doing it. Many of my posts have not appeared, and they have never been abusive. I may indeed get bored, but I will never get frustrated, because your site only preaches to the converted. If your arguments ever had the strength to make me doubt my stance you might be onto something.

    10. Chasing Leviathan5 March 2014 at 15:24

      Geordie Sceptic, I am very much interested in reading your detailed response to GB's article about camera phones. I agree this is a very important point and would like to read a detailed discussion of the pros and cons. I completely agree when you write "it's imperative that all sides of the arguments are available for people to read." Please keep posting. :)

    11. Geordie Sceptic, to others the head looks very real (so much that some sceptics have claimed that there's...too much detail in it). What from a distance gives the impression that it looks similar to the waves, is rather the effect of the infrared filter that makes the water, the waves and any objects swimming or floating in it appear in a monochrome grey shade tone. But you have made another strong argument: ''quote" Additionally, the boat must have been over that very spot about 2 seconds before the photo was taken, no animal could survive that unhurt.''unquote''
      Well..., the boat was not over that spot about 2 seconds earlier, neither 6 to 9 seconds even, but in fact it was never over that spot! (-at least not during that trip). As I mention in my blog post, the courses of the boat and 'Nessie' NEVER actually cross in the pic. I thought this would be obvious to someone who has observed the photo so carefully so as to reach to definite conclusions, but apparently it's not, so here, Geordie, let me show it to you... The red arrow marks the route that the boat is following. And the blue (pill) arrow marks the 'Nessie' surfacing spot...

    12. Geordie Sceptic6 March 2014 at 03:43

      OK I'll accept the boat didn't cross that point. I'll also accept some sceptics think they see detail.

      However, none of that changes a thing - it's still clearly a wave. There is a seamless blending of this lump into the surrounding water, something that simply could not happen with an emerging animal head. I ask you again to find even one known animal photo where it blends with the water like that. Impossible!
      I see infra red was used. Anyone who has taken infra red photos knows about the unusual tone effects where parts of photos go darker or lighter.
      Anyway, I'm still awaiting GB's upload of my post yesterday. I don't think I'm willing to discuss a clear photo of a wave any longer, so I think I'll leave this thread unless someone responds to the post I'm waiting for GB to upload.

    13. "but every new and/or ambiguous image has to be a monster in your eyes."

      Nonsense, I more than once take a neutral stance. The recent hump and neck photo, did I say I believed it was a monster? No.

      The Ken Ross picture, was I proclaiing it as a geunine picture of Nessie? No.

      Blind acceptance - nonsense again. You may or may not have noticed that a large part of this blog is also dissecting and debuking sceptical explanations. That is a perfectly legitmate and analytical procedure. You can call it "religious" if you wish.

      Weak analysis of overlaid photos? You are making the tail wag the dog here. That was a small part of the overall analysis, you puff it up to make an exaggerated point. and you may have noticed I concluded the overlaying did not provide anything conclusive! And why exactly can't I overlay distant hills from cameras which you say have different focal lengths?

      and your 2 sec "esitmate" was a pure guess!

      We don't need the Dinsdale film to know about longer sightings, its not the only one on the record (though they be few).

      And every analyst has a degree of bias, get over it!

    14. Geordie Sceptic8 March 2014 at 03:37

      I have experienced an epiphany via this particular page. I've been spending time arguing over a clear as day photo of a wave! I may as well spend time debating with the Flat Earth Society.
      I've decided I'll save my energies for more intriguing photos and videos in future.

  8. I agree with you GB it amazes me that people who dont believe in it waste their time on here. Madness. Though i am in agreement that this photo is just a wave as there is a few of the same around it. But i do believe in tgese creatures as u know.

  9. I think he’s here to be a new thorn in your side GB. There’s always room for constructive criticisms. But I think Geordie Sceptic pushes the envelope too much by being to nitpicky, and argumentative for arguments sake. In a word, he’s an agitator.

  10. Glasgow boy,are you aware of the control freaks in the nwo?all opinion in science is to be Occult Science Dictatorship PDF by William r are being manipulated by geordic skeptic,possibly.they say if you form a backyard tea party the nwo will insert a worker to volunteer ,print flyers,run errands and implement the control tactics,no matter how small your group is.daily mail recently had a story from that yank whistle blower,showing the templates used for the internet,and in person manipulation,and deception.these deviants follow a predictable,varied subtle, tactics that,once learned you can weed out.

    1. I have been a student of conspiracy theories for years - Jesuits, Majestic 12, Illuminati, JFK, Soviet, etc. Which one are you talking about?

    2. Geordie Sceptic12 March 2014 at 16:23

      Listen, I'm just a person who doesn't believe in a monster in Loch Ness. However, I do believe that current knowledge of science will be considered flawed in many areas a hundred years from now.
      I have no desire to control or conspire, I simply don't believe in a Loch Ness Monster.

    3. Basically the heirachy,Moriah,the cult,the people who rule the world.Geordie skeptic will now run the damage control template,to regain position as a,quote,regular poster,unquote.As stupid as it sounds,every bit of science interplay Will be controlled.the PDF or book by lyne is available free on the net,however lyne probably could use the money.He's also on you tube explaining the history of UFOs.His books are Pentagon Aliens,Occult Ether Physics,and Occult Science Dictatorship.This Geordie skeptic fits perfectly the synergy technique to manipulate,sow discord,etc,etc,which results in a decisive spirit and a general failure of the cohivesivness of the theme and intent of your regards the public which are reading it.

    4. Okay, well, let's stick to the Loch Ness Monster debate. Plenty of other sites cover Occult topics.

    5. Aparently the controllers,will desire to engineer history,science,etc.If they want the public to Not believe in the lochness animal,then one tactic will be to discredit you in many ways.look for Geordie s. To disappear, continue,or reappear as another poster.but he will continue,or another worker will take his work shift,because they are on the payroll.possibly your site is contrary to the cults goals,or the theory of evolution.

  11. Then why spend so much time in a site that believes in the loch ness monster? Seems very strange to me

  12. Geordie Sceptic13 March 2014 at 07:17

    I've explained above why I'm here. If people think a purely pro-Nessie site is a good thing and it won't lead to blinkered thinking, speak up now. I will leave if that's the consensus.
    As for all this NWO stuff, I genuinely haven't got a clue about it. Not even bothered watching that film about the holy grail, just not interested in conspiracies. And even if I was, I'm scratching my head wondering why the nwo would care either way about an unknown species in a Scottish lake.
    I now anticipate some kind of reply about an internet template - again something I've never even heard of before these anonymous posts.
    Anyway, see above for the reasons behind my interest. I enjoy debates, but it's a bit weird to be told I'm part of a global conspiracy!
    By the way GB, if you're having any events in the near future, I'm happy to get involved, maybe hand out some leaflets etc.

    1. I don't think Geordie Sceptic is part of anything you suggest about NWO or similar. He's just someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster and there plenty such people!

    2. Furthermore, I will not allow any more comments on NWO stuff. I think the opinion has been sufficiently stated.

      Back to Nessie ....