Wednesday, 6 March 2019

First Nessie Picture of 2019?




The Nessie season appears to have kicked off with a new photo (above) purportedly of the Loch Ness Monster taken eleven days ago. The story from the Scottish Sun runs thusly:

THE Loch Ness monster appears to have become active once again with two apparent sightings in just five days after the beast had not been for a whole month. A woman from Manchester claims to have spotted and photographed the creature on February 23.

Lisa Brennan, 30, and her partner, Danny, 37, were driving near to Urquhart Castle when they made the first February sighting. Lisa's snap shows a L-shaped black object on the water which could be taken as the head and neck of Nessie.

She said the object disappeared shortly after she took the image. Lisa said today: “We were driving around the loch and as we got to Urquhart Bay, just before the castle, I spotted a dark object around 3ft tall above the water surface. “I shouted, ‘Oh my god I've just seen something.’ He slowed down the car, didn't believe me but each to their own. "By the time I had got the camera ready on my phone the object had lowered into the water so I only managed to get as much as I did on the photo as it then disappeared into the water.


“I made him turn around at the castle and go back to see if we saw anything else but unfortunately we didn't. Danny didn't see anything as he was driving, but said my reaction to what I saw was very convincing.”




On examination of the picture, it was my assumption that the two white dots further up may be seagulls or swans which implies the object of interest is not that big, even allowing for its closer proximity. The sandbank near the two swans/seagulls forms part of the Coiltie-Enrick estuary. Having said that, Lisa's estimate of three feet would back up that "small" feeling. The object submerged, which is normally a useful feature, but they then briefly departed from the scene to turn around which allows time for any bird or other water animal to fly off or swim out of view.

So, nothing to see here, move on. The first of the blobby nessies has arrived to continue the line of, at best, inconclusive pictures over recent years such as those taken by Natalie Hodgson, Isla Ross, Charlotte Robinson, the Locke family and so on. Poor mobile phone cameras, too far away objects and so on. The trouble is when something interesting surfaces close by (such as that by Ricky Phillips), a dose of toogoodtobetrueitis sets in plus close up shots lose the context of where they are, thus obscuring the overall picture. The happy medium between close proximity and background is something surprised witnesses are unlikely to control.

As an update, I could be more cynical and invoke the tree debris that was photographed in that area in 2017 when the Hayley Johnson picture was being discussed. It does have a curious resemblance to the object above, but is it still there? Of course, if it was a log, then our witnesses are not being  truthful about it disappearing. Hmmm.


 

Meantime, the Mirror newspaper consulted two resident Loch Ness experts, Adrian Shine and Steve Feltham, in the light of this latest report. It starts somewhat ambiguously in saying:

But both men say they have reached the disappointing conclusion that Nessie there never was a prehistoric monster living in the loch. And they claimed that the recent sighting, like the more than a thousand other Nessie sightings down the years, have a much less fantastic explanation.

Had Steve Feltham stopped believing in a monster in Loch Ness? The statement was actually a bit more nuanced as it referred only to a "prehistoric monster" which I presume is meant to encompass such long extinct creatures as plesiosaurs, basilosaurs and so on.  Yes, well I must admit I don't hold to those either. Steve was quoted on his giant catfish theory again and Adrian mentioned his old theory of sturgeons. 

As for this week's picture, let's hope things improve from hereon in and something akin to the picture below will turn up. Just make sure y'all get your vaccine shots for toogoodtobetrueitis first.





The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



31 comments:

  1. It's a good start for a new season of Nessie sightings. And Eoin O’ Faodhagain gets his second webcam sighting. And what a way to kick it off than with more dark, blobby images of “something”. But hey, it's something and the cameras are not the best and taken from a distance. In this case they are not “to good to be true” I wouldn't say they are inconclusive, just vague as to exactly what they show, morphology wise. There's something there. Leave it up to the media to keep rehashing the old catfish theory. Well giant catfish or sturgeon, how does one account for the long neck/appendage? That is a problem. Unless it's really a big fish-like creature with a proboscis for a sensory/eating appendage and able to clamber on to land to boot. But anything is possible I guess. There's nothing simple about this mystery. I continue to await the true conclusive, yes, it's true pic. Hopefully I won't need my toogoodtobetrueitis vaccination. I first learned about these sightings this morning and was going to post this link to the blog, but GB beat me to the punch:

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/nessie-spotted-twice-in-five-days/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't give the catfish theory any more credence that the sturgeon theory. They are pretty much alike, though sturgeon advocates do try and turn the sturgeon snout into a neck. Sturgeon could theoretically get into the loch from the sea, the catfsish theory requires human intervention to introduce them or as escapees from somewhere else. Given the popularity of loch ness for anglers over three centuries, I suspect any would have been caught and publicised by now.

      Delete
    2. Catfish- no.
      Pleasiosaur-yes.

      Delete
  2. The Sun report mentions two sightings in five days...what was the second?...or if Lisa Brennan was the second, then what was the first?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoin O’ Faodhagain got another webcam shot. I have stated my views on webcams before - they need to get a lot closer.

      Delete
  3. Another image that could be something but is so vague and murky it has almost zero value as evidence even if it is a 30 foot antideluvian apex predator from the Mesozoic period.
    P.S. I'm hilariously skint or I'd buy your book Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hilariously skint? Too many kids, wives or not enough pay? :)

      Delete
    2. Ha ha - not enough pay. No wives. No kids.

      Delete
    3. Next time I am quids in I'll buy a couple of them I swear. The only Nessie book I've had in the last couple of years is a first edition copy of The Loch Ness Monster by Rupert Gould my producer bought me which I reckon cost a couple hundred pounds. It's quite a thing. You write well. I'm sure your books are great.

      Delete
  4. In my opinion this is a photo of a duck, wings raised above its body as it descends. Nothing more.
    The witnesses discription being embellished to justify a nessie report when they realised that their picture might well be good enough to fool the most gullible of us.
    As to the "swans/seagulls" in the background... Their swans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I don't think there is much to debate concerning what is in the water - it is no Nessie. Your accusation that the newspaper embellished is however less clear. Are you saying the author of the report altered the words of witness or framed the unaltered words in a Nessie framework?

      Delete
    2. And here I am thinking it is a bona fide Nessie. I think I'm getting conditioned to believe every blobby photo is the Real McCoy. I just hope that in my zeal and enthusiasm for the LNM, I'm not getting a bit too gullible. Some pseudo- skeptics will reply that I am already gullible, but my reply to that is that I am a skeptic, on some of the evidence. Be open-minded, but question and challenge the evidence. Must be careful...must be careful......

      Delete
  5. Meanwhile, expanding upon upon your "toogoodtobeforgotten" motif regarding The Ricky Phillips sighting, I did ask you over on my Facebook page whether you have known all along that his tour company that he works for is called "Nessiehunters" offering day trips to Fort Augustus every day from Edinburgh, but you maybe missed my question because I didn't get an answer, did you know this small detail before today?
    And that question goes to.... Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I didn't notice what you said on your facebook page, mainly because I don't follow everything you say. But now you have brought it to my attention, I am again unclear on what you are saying or to be more precise not saying. I hope you are not getting like that old pseudo-sceptic Dick Raynor who never directly accuses eyewitnesses but goes around in couched and circuitous language insinuating things unstated.

      So play the man, you always come across as forthright on these matters, but have gone a bit nebulous here - state clearly what you are implying about Ricky Phillips and this Nessiehunters company, so we are left in no doubt as to your hidden and unexpressed thoughts.

      Meantime I will nudge Ricky to have a look and exercise his right of reply.

      Delete
    2. Excuse me for butting in on this exchange, but this blog is an open forum and I'm just throwing this out there. Is there a possibility that Ricky Phillips is involved in a conspiracy to hoax? Perish the thought! Just when I was seriously thinking we might have something here with the Phillips Pic. Oh no! Say it ain't so!

      Delete
  6. Well, if we can agree that we are most likely looking at an airborne duck then what iam saying is that the rest of her account cannot be true.
    For all the rest of the events she discribe to be true then what she photographed cannot be a duck.
    Both things cannot be true.
    It cannot be a duck in flight if all this is true....
    "
    I spotted a dark object around 3ft tall above the water surface. “I shouted, ‘Oh my god I've just seen something.’ He slowed down the car, didn't believe me but each to their own. "By the time I had got the camera ready on my phone the object had lowered into the water so I only managed to get as much as I did on the photo as it then disappeared into the water"

    All we have as hard evidence in front of us is her photograph, which I believe is a duck.
    So where does this leave us regarding the eyewitness account?
    Which is true Roland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it might be an airborne duck, Steve, but that cannot be established from the photo. My own opinion is that it is on the surface of the water. Obviously different opinions can lead to further secondary opinions which can diverge further from the original divergent opinions.

      Might be worth a visit to the area to see if that log is still there from 2017 - seems unlikely, I will update for that theory.

      Delete
  7. Sorry that I wasn't clear here Roland, what I would like to know is whether you have known that the company he guides for is called "Nessiehunters " all along?
    Reason I'd like to know is that I remember when someone (not me) raised all that stuff about Ricky not being a true historical researcher or whatever, to which at the time you said something along the lines of "myself and Ricky did wonder how long it would be until someone brought that to everyones attention."
    I now am interested to know if you both also wondered how long it would be until this small detail was thrown into the mix, or if you were blissfully unaware.
    I also note your little attempt there to pigeonhole me up with dick Raynor a bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I didn't know about "Nessiehunters". Meantime I was first made aware of the "Historical researcher" thing via a communication from another Nessie fan on the 25th Jan, not Ricky. I wanted Ricky's view on it before taking it further and while that was ongoing hopkarma submitted a comment on it the next day and so I gave him the floor to reveal this particular item. Simples.

      Any other accusations or negativity before we proceed? You're beginning to sound like a certain person who was punted from ZPS recently.

      I compared you to Dick Raynor because he sometimes says things without being straight about what he is implying and I note you still haven't told us what you mean by this reference to Nessiehunters?

      Spit it out, man!




      Delete
  8. Article updated for log theory - which I would rate less than birds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We would you have to get your "camera ready" if you are at Loch Ness and hoping to see something? I think that while this photo shows three birds - two swans and a duck or some other water fowl - Steve is not realizing how clever the witness has been.

    That paragraph again: I spotted a dark object around 3ft tall above the water surface. “I shouted, ‘Oh my god I've just seen something.’ He slowed down the car, didn't believe me but each to their own. "By the time I had got the camera ready on my phone the object had lowered into the water so I only managed to get as much as I did on the photo as it then disappeared into the water"

    That fits with someone seeing a bird flying over and landing in water. Of course there was nothing unusual to be seen when they went back, but why didn't they take another shot or two for comparison? Let me guess - the camera was out of memory! "I wasn't lying Guv'nr, that is what I saw"...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, witnesses rarely if ever take pictures of empty water. Of course, it helps us as investigators, but they are not motivated in the same way.

      Delete
  10. Steve took the deal Damm!
    Shine took it long ago.
    No dinosaurs
    Evolution theory is safe!

    ReplyDelete
  11. My interest in wether you new about the company he works fors name being Nessiehuntes is a simple one.
    Does this new small piece of information impact at all upon your assessment of Ricky's reliability as a genuine witness?
    That's all, it's just been a tough short road getting to this point where I can ask this question .
    I for example only found out the day before yesterday and a freely admit that after looking at their Nessiehunters.com website it has influenced my view slightly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. .... And on the other hand, if you had known about the company name all along but decided not to mention it until someone else spotted it, then that would also impact upon my view of you as an investigator. So both possible answers are of interest to me.
    (long term I'm happier that you didn't know by the way) .

    ReplyDelete
  13. So this is why I possibly came across as being deliberately obtuse.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That new photograph....sigh....nothing of value. Frustrating to see such a useless dark smudge which could be anything, a goddamn milk carton floating there would be just as good as this worthless photograph.
    However that bottom head and neck trio of photographs...very intriguing!! Please tell me there is no hoax involvement as yet? Why are those pics not better known also ? - they look like a proper Nessie sighting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James Gray 9th May 2001 - five pictures of the creature descending into the water. A sequence the pseudo-sceptics desperately want to debunk.

      Delete
  15. Thanks Glasgow Boy! Five pics is even better. Have you ever spoken to James Gray? The neck looks like it has a similarity to the movement Fr. Brusey described. I would dare say those are the most convincing nessie photo's that I have ever seen.They actually look like the creature many witnesses have described. Those pics could be hoaxed and sure they may be staged - yet they appear somewhat genuine. The neck movement photo's were taken from the same distance which would add time to staging these ( if they were hoaxed )
    I like these photographs, an interview with James Gray would be highly intriguing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I have spoken to James Gray by phone and include that in my chapter on his photos in my latest book.

      Delete
  16. Any photo of an object at Loch Ness taken from a distance seems to be dismissed as a bird between camera and water these days. Pseudo-scepticism at its worst!

    ReplyDelete