Saturday, 8 September 2018

A Question on the Roy Johnston Photos




Roy Johnston took a sequence of eight photographs purporting to be of the Loch Ness Monster in the act of submerging back in August 2002. Naturally, the reaction to the pictures was mixed but they were generally dismissed by those who examined them. Sixteen years later I plan to cover these pictures in one chapter of my forthcoming book on the monster. For the time being, I will assume a neutral position and be a listener as others possibly express their opinions but also perhaps offer data on the event.

To that end, I have a request asking if anyone has the article on these pictures from the News Of The World newspaper dated Sunday 8th September 2002? An enquiry to the British Library suggests it only made it into the Scottish edition and so far I have not found it. I do remember reading the article years back but cannot recall the source now so any help will be appreciated. I am aware of the arguments made by leading researchers and these will be considered in the book as well.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

34 comments:

  1. Pretty sure I've still got the article somewhere Roland, I will have a rummage and see if I can find it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Mr Felthan. If you don’t mind me asking, what are your thoughts on these photos? I think they sort of match some eyewitness statements and I’m inclined to believe they’re genuine, but something about them gives me a niggling doubt. I’m not sure if it’s because the object is so thin.

      Delete
  2. Though I've at best found the authenticity of the pics debatable there's always been one thing that gnaws away at my suspicion - why would he go to such lengths to take not just one but a series of faked pictures? After all, if you are going to try to pass off a fake as genuine, wouldn't the chances of being exposed as fake increase the more pics that are produced? It will be interesting to see the take on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theoretically, yes. The more image processsing that occurs, the higher the probability of a mistake being made and being found.

      Delete
    2. We'll Well you only have to release the ones you like.

      Delete
  3. There seems to be plenty about this on the internet but I found an interesting article about these pictures here. Even more suspicious when you see the connections.
    http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/gray.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That website is scientifically flawed and extremely biased. I wouldn’t get my “facts” from there if I were you.

      Delete
    2. I am aware of the arguments made at that site. Rest assured those will be covered in the book chapter as well.

      Delete
    3. Biased or not, if a small percentage of the information is correct then it doesn't look good for these photos. I know life is complicated, but more twists and turns tend to point to fakery.

      Delete
  4. Judging by the one photo on here, the intitial reaction is that the neck doesn't seem to be attached to anything bulky under the surface and the optical anomaly that the unfeasibly slender neck is sharper and has more contrast than the water surface and background.

    However until we can examine good quality repros of the other photos in the series one should hold fire in completely dismissing them as examples of the type of visual hokum Frank Searle would have been producing had he lived longer into the digital age .

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a strange photo.The neck is a lot thinner than most eyewitness accounts. This could even pass for Roy's Tullimonstrum, the head and neck are identical.Perhaps Ted Holiday was on to something after all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's quite nice photoshop if it is digital manipulation. There appears to be some shadow in the water and the object looks meshed into the environment regarding lighting. If it's a model floating then the buoyancy device is well integrated - perhaps just below the surface?

    In my opinion what this is not is a live animal. It has an angular head, a smooth, almost machine tooled "neck" and a general uniform unaturalness found nowhere in nature from my layman's knowledge. There is no tapering on the "neck" which you'd expect and it's almost comically skinny. It also matches none of the thousands of eye witness descriptions except in the loosest sense that it's presumably a head and neck.

    Intrigued to see the other photos in the sequence, I'm sure your take will be as fascinating as always GB, but to me this first one is not encouraging as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. According to the article in the Sept 8, 2002 Scotsman the pictures were made by a film camera and were not digital, and the article quotes Lawrence Sear of the Daily Mail as saying that the Daily Mail had collected the negatives and that there did not appear to be any manipulation (of the negatives).

    That to me is intriguing; digital photos are easily manipulated. Film? Not so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a phrase oft used, but what does one mean by manipulation of the negatives?

      Delete
    2. Perhaps it means leaving a photo negative on a bird table in the hope that a plesiosaur-shaped poo will be deposited on it? Joke!

      Delete
    3. "Manipulation" in this case would mean retouched/physically altered in order for the print(s) to show something that was not originally on the negative i.e. drawing a picture of a head and neck poking out of the water.

      Delete
  8. Hmmm, no luck so far with my appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No help from Steve Feltham? He said he might have the article, but apparently not. Of course he'd have to find a way of getting it to you if he did (scan it and send it via internet. Or go to a local establishment where he can use such a service. By the way, I wonder if he has A computer and internet service in his converted mobile home? From what Iv'e seen in videos, he lives a pretty spartan life by the loch shore Maybe these web archiving services might help, but you probably already thought about that. Just a hint.

    https://archive.org

    https://web.archive.org

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve is on the Internet else he wouldn't have been able to post a comment here.

      Delete
    2. OK. Then I guess he couldn't find the article. :(

      Delete
    3. I've got Internet here, and the Dores Inn WiFi signal reaches me fine. I emailed a photo of the original daily mail exclusive two page spread, but it turns out Roland is looking for the news of the world article from the following day which I haven't found.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Steve. Just wasn't sure and wondered about your accessibility to the internet from your present location, or where you might be getting online from. That clears that up! Cheers

      Delete
  10. Re neg manipulation. In days of yore before digital photography it was possible to alter a film negative either by cutting out an unwanted aspect and insetting a more desirous effect or just scratching the emulsion from the back of the neg to make something appear darker on the positive print.
    Similarly you can alter the neg by using black marker pen on the clear parts of neg.

    All these alterations are obvious when the neg is inspected.

    However even with an untouched neg there are various darkroom tricks that can be performed when making a positive print [ see the McNab debate ]

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'Loch Ness Monster: Missing Evidence' is on in half an hour at 7pm on channel 5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saw a bit, circus elephants!? Well Roy Johnston did describe it initially as an elephant trunk.

      Delete
    2. It's the AquaPhant..a rheogue Barnum and Bailey circus elephant that shock-evolved to live in the lock feeding on "Oxymussels" unique to the lock.Thus was born the AquaPhant!

      Delete
  12. Adrian Shine doing his usual " it's all a load of bulls**t but I like being on telly " act.

    The pachyderm theory is hilarious, Nellie the heffalump would have been fair wabbit swimming round the loch in the years 1933-34.........and no buns !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John that's so true about Adrian. I guess he was a hard-core believer for a good 10 years and he doesn't completely rule Nessie out 100% so it's important to him. But aye, he's aaaaaaalways on the telly!

      Delete
  13. I watched that.I still think the Gordon Holmes video is very interesting, but how anyone thought it could be a seal is beyond me.I have never seen a seal move like that through the water.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This head/neck presents the same problem as the O'Connor photo - exactly where/how does this neck connect to a body?

    ReplyDelete
  15. After reading Dick Raynor's take on this foto i think there is too many problems ..i smell a rat ! But i agree with the holmes video..defo not a seal cos they dont move like that ...Roy

    ReplyDelete
  16. Interesting photo. I do believe that this is a photo of an actual object in the water, rather than some sort of image manipulation. However, that doesn't mean that someone didn't go and put something in the loch and take pictures. That being said, everyone assumes that this is suppose to show the head and neck of the Loch Ness beastie. Possibly it is an actual unknown creature, but not its head and neck.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have indeed been thinking not all "necks" reported are actually necks. Spicers' undulating neck looks impossible for a vertebrae neck.

    ReplyDelete