Referring back to an article that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in September 2022, I had written on the 1933 Hugh Gray photograph and went further into my own views on this significant picture . The details of that article are here. Since then Bruce Champagne sent a letter to the journal in reply to my article which I was invited to further reply to. Bruce is known in cryptozoological circles for his work on sea serpents as well as relict hominids and so I read his reply with interest and then composed what I hope was an appropriate response.
Bruce Champagne's letter can be found here and my reply was published in the same issue here. The two main issues revolve around the inevitable interpretation of how such photographs. We are sometimes told that eyewitness reports are subjective while recorded images are objective. Well, nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the multiplicity of "objective" views when it comes to Loch Ness Monster photographs. The other issue concerns eyewitness versus recorded image when they both refer to the same event.
Comments can be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.
The author can also be contacted at email@example.com