Saturday 2 July 2016

Revisiting the William Jobes Photograph



Do you remember this picture from back in 2011? It created a bit of a stir back then and made its way into the national newspapers. At the time, I published a couple of blog articles (here and here), but I stated that until I heard from William himself, I couldn't really say more. 

That time came last Saturday as William came up to talk to me at the Scottish UFO and Paranormal Conference in Glasgow. I am glad he did as I now have a much clearer picture of what happened over those days in May 2011 straight from the man who witnessed and photographed the Loch Ness Monster.

Right enough, I am now moving from somewhere between neutral and the theory that this was just a piece of garbage that had floated into the loch. I now take the view that William took a series of photographs of Nessie and that his account was distorted and downgraded by the media  (despite the sceptics telling us that the papers have a habit of "bigging up" Nessie reports). William told me that the tip to the right of the picture is the tail of the creature.




Of course, speaking face to face with a witness makes a difference and I was convinced of his sincerity and genuineness. That may not stop sceptics saying that he genuinely misinterpreted something he saw, but based on what I heard and saw from him, that does not look likely. The thought that struck me was why no one else had come forward with a photograph of this so-called piece of rubbish floating around in the loch? After all, it wasn't going anywhere and there are more than enough tourists around Fort Augustus Pier in late May watching the loch with their cameras.

Anyway, the story is not for me to tell at this point in time. William told me that his story and photographs will be appearing in Malcolm Robinson's soon to be published "The Monsters of Loch Ness". I spoke to Malcolm at the conference on Saturday and it looks like it will be out in about a month. I won't steal his thunder and I will comment further once the book has been published and reviewed here.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




30 comments:

  1. What a shame its taken 5 years or so for the real story behind this sighting to emerge, and im suprised that the gentleman has said it was the tail end to the right.
    I look forward to reading his real account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our man was put off by the negativity that so often comes with sceptical "analysis".

      That won't be the first time it has put off people coming forward ...

      Delete
  2. Does one normally get bits of rubbish floating around Loch Ness? I ask because I'm genuinely not sure, only having visited once. I am aware of the sea loughs we have in Northern Ireland, and one does occasionally get debris washed up, but I have no idea about freshwater lakes. To me, it looks like a rather sedate sea creature, but not a large one. I'm familiar with seals swimming and diving, and it does not look like a seal to me (given the appendage).
    Lighting plays a big role in how much detail is in the image. None here unfortunately, you just have to get lucky with that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If that isn't a tail on the right, but rather a head and neck, it looks like a big long-necked turtle to me...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are the other photographs available? At what intervals were they taken, and do they show any changes?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes there are times when there is debris floating around, especially after storms. Has anyone seen the other photo's if there is any? and will they be shown in the new book ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw them but you will hopefully see them in Malcolm's book.

      Delete
    2. What is your opinion of them Roland?

      Delete
    3. Looked good, but I only briefly saw them, so another look when the book comes out is warranted. There is an appearance of ridges on one photo.

      Delete
  6. Yes lots. Especially after stormy weather.

    Go to Dores beach in the weeks following stormy weather to get an idea of the amount of debris that can be found in the loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, yes. I visited Dores Beach after that huge storms some months back and saw tree debris piled high. I wouldn't say that an inspection of that biomass showed anything like the Jobes photo.

      Delete
  7. I've only ever seen one Jobes photo. If he took a few shots then it would be good to see them so we can make a more informed judgement as to whether we're seeing an animate object or something more everyday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is there's lots of debris in the loch of all shapes and sizes.

      I've found all sorts on Dores beach - car seats, crates, large drums, plastic sheeting, etc etc.

      You've met the guy, I haven't. I agree there's nothing like a face to face meeting with a witness. However, debris simply cannot be discounted.

      Delete
    2. Stop it.
      Debris absolutly can be discounted in this case.

      Delete
  8. I find it strange why only the one photo was shown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More than one was taken, the media did not publsih them all.

      Delete
  9. Mr Jobes camera is almost certainly capable of recording a raw image, like a digital negative. Significantly more fine detail may be present in such an image, if he has set his camera to record raw, kept the files, and has the means to process the data. This may lead to surface details invisible in the above photo , although if we are at the limits of our sensor and lens resolving powers, then maybe that is all we get. It might be an idea to ask Mr Jobes these questions if one can get in contact with him, and I would be happy to look at the image myself if I could get my hands on it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was in Loch Ness at the time of this sighting, and not long after i saw Mr Jobes outside the Boathouse restaurant in the same spot he took the photograph, he was watching a dark shape that was emerging from near cherry island which once viewed from my binoculars was clearly a log. He was there quite a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One would need the equivalent of 500mm focal length (big) to have a comparable field of view to a 10x magnification set of binoculars. It would also depend on the cameras viewfinder (and some modern ones are not that hot). I imagine a fairly cheap decent pair of binoculars would outgun all but the most expensive camera setup, at least for the immediate view. The viewfinders tend to be bigger and brighter from experience. So it's possible to see quite different levels of detail with cameras and binoculars. I hope that's not what happened here.

      Delete
    2. Not the same situation, Martin (assuming Nessie Hunter recognised William Jobes correctly - did he recognise him from the newspapers which published his photo?)

      Delete
    3. I'm a bit confused as to how one just happens to be in the right place to debunk someone's phot, and this detail pops up 5 years later. However I was pointing out how someone using cheap decent binoculars would be at an advantage to most photographers, in terms of through the lens detail.

      Delete
  11. Yes i recognised Mr Jobes after his sighting report, and it was a few weeks later i saw him outside the boathouse.He was staring at a dark object by cherry island which at first through the naked eye looked like a hump, but after checking it out through my binoculars ( 12 X ) i could see it was debris. The point i was making was Mr Jobes did not reach for his camera once during this sighting so for me he was not easily fooled by debris, If you see what i mean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. If I saw the Loch Ness Monster, I guess I would want to be back up at the loch asap.

      Delete
  12. Did Mr Jobes give any reference to the size of the object he saw Roland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the first day, 4-5ft of back. William estimates the total length of the creature to be 20-25ft.

      Delete
  13. In the photo the black "back" looks suspiciously black, and the area where the "back" and the waterline meet is also suspiciously straight.
    A case of [not very good] photo tampering going on. Sadly the Loch Ness saga is riddled with such photographic frauds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think any tampering has gone on here.

      Delete
  14. I disagree. The original photo looks very real to me. A photo always goes to look a bit dodgy when it is zoomed in, that is expected, but from the original photo further away it does not look tampered with in any way.

    ReplyDelete