Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Friday, 9 August 2013

A Longneck Fishing At Loch Ness

This series of photos would seem to represent the forepart of the neck (typically 10 feet long and 1 foot thick, or less in the same  proportion) doing the regularly-reported arching over fishing movement. this action has been compared to the motion of an inchworm.

The original source seems to have been The Daily Mail, but I cannot tell because the text was deleted after this version was posted. Here is a different facsimile of the page in black and white:
 Here is another version of a text story as given on another site: The Sun 8 Sep 2002 

One of the photographs taken by tourist Roy Johnston.

New Nessie pictures spark debate


 NESSIE mania returned to Scotland yesterday after new pictures were printed of Scotland’s most reclusive resident. The new photos appeared to show a slimmer Loch Ness monster, prompting fervent speculation that the living dinosaur could have been pregnant. Instead of the usual fleeting glimpse afforded her followers, Nessie stayed above the surface long enough for retired printer Roy Johnston to take at least four photographs showing the suspiciously snake-like Nessie arching out of the water and returning to it with a splash. The new photographs, printed in yesterday’s Daily Mail, prompted an immediate debate as to whether they are genuine. Johnston, 63, said he and his wife, Janet, had been nearing the end of a Highlands driving holiday two weeks ago when he decided to stop in a lay-by near the loch. He made his way to the loch’s edge at around 9am and had been standing there only a few minutes before the "creature" emerged. "I thought I was going mad," he said. "The first thought that sprang into my mind was, ‘That’s an elephant.’ I know it sounds silly but it looked like a trunk. It was the same length and width. "I wondered if the creature was a conger eel, but it was way too big for that. It was about seven or eight feet out of the water and it was obvious that there was more of it underneath the surface." The sighting has delighted tourism businesses in the area. Malaina Krott-Thiarry, a worker at a tourist information centre close to the loch, said: "I have no idea what to make of these pictures, but I think they’re good news for the area. This might lead to a boost for business later this year or next year." Lawrence Sear, the managing editor of the Daily Mail, said there was absolutely no sign the photographs had been doctored. "We collected the negatives from Mr Johnston and they were absolutely genuine. They have not been manipulated at any stage," he said. "Who knows whether the images are of the Loch Ness monster or not? All we can say is that those pictures are genuine and have not been doctored." But Scotland on Sunday’s picture editor, Kayt Turner, said there was room for doubt. The Daily Mail published a sequence of pictures to represent the object emerging from the water and then submerging. But the third picture in the sequence, representing the splash of water, was appreciably lighter in colour than the previous two images. Turner said: "Those pictures were not taken in sequence." A picture editor for 15 years, she added: "Anyone with a spare £500 can get the equipment needed to digitally manipulate this kind of image, using a simple software package such as Photoshop. All you need is a scanner and a computer. "Looking at this image it is impossible to tell if there has been any manipulation. It would be very simple to take a picture of an object and place it in the loch. "The only way you could be sure they are genuine would be to see the original negatives." The pictures have started a squabble between the Daily Mail and the News of the World. The latter is expected to pour cold water over the sighting, as it has signed up a Nessie expert to analyse the pictures. The expert, Adrian Shine, who has spent 20 years in a scientific quest for Nessie, was barred from talking to Scotland on Sunday but a friend said: "We’re all very sceptical."

underwater photo of the neck of the Loch Ness Monster: the photo also shows the thicker and thinner segments of the neck, although the foreshortened perspective makes this harder to see. This photo is reversed.

Here is another similar recent photograph but possibly more likely to be only a log,

The Loch Ness Monster
Loch Ness monster - blow up
Finally, the image to silence all the sceptics and Nessie nay-sayers. Innovative Loch
Ness researcher and local commentator, Mikko Takala, has managed to obtain this
clear photograph of Nessie - a plesiosaur - in Loch Ness. The incredible image was
captured at 17.14 on 30 July 2005 in this area. The creature was estimated to be
about three and a half meters long and was about fifty meters offshore. No photo
trickery has been used, although some other sadly envious "researchers" are already
making such unfounded and spiteful allegations. Mikko is interested to know
your views about this image. Special thanks to Strider for the image enhancement
work in the right hand photo.

[The flipper could also continue to extend forward rather than be recurved back.
The neck part outlined in green is said to be about a dozen feet long but the portion that seems to carry on to the left does tend to look like a not so very large branch floating on the surface, with the forked end giving the appearance of an uplifted head and neck with a flipper stretched out  at the base. -DD]

 [Below is an old illustration showing that it was understood that the Loch Ness Monster fishes and attacks by arching its neck and then striking downward
Roy Mackal suggests that the Surgeon's photo at Loch Ness is only a swimming water bird. He does not provide any comparison. Here is a common waterbird, a cormorant, compared to the image from the Surgeon's Photograph: as you can see there is NO similarity to speak of. The creature in the Surgeon's Photo has a much longer neck and smaller head, and the head is a different shape with NO BEAK. And the Cormorant obviously rides higher in the water.


  1. Perhaps the photos are hoaxes?

    1. Perhaps they are but then again perhaps they are not, and you gain nothing by assuming a hoax from the onset when you have no good reason to assume so. Indeed that hurts your case when you jump right in and say so from the onset

    2. Then it equally hurts the case to presume that this is real from the onset, if what you are trying to prove is the reality of Nessie.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is far from extraordinary evidence. Real or not, a picture like this is easily faked either through photoshop or by simply putting a remotely controlled object in the water.

  2. Are you able to give details of the source and date of the newspaper report, Dale?

    1. I'm sorry, Blogger wiped that information since the original version of this blog was posted. I'll try to find the originating site once again and re-post it.

    2. There now, I've added something to cover that, plus several extras to help out even more.

  3. It is far from impossible, in fact it is free and simple to do an error level analysis on photos like these. Anyone can do it right here:

    And check out tutorials on how to analyze the results. Most of the pictures are pics of pics, taken from the news paper and as such cannot be analyzed, but the b&w picture (not the sepia ones) of the neck above the water shows as having been altered.

  4. Perhaps you are not familiar with my stated stance on ANY photographic evidence? I have stated repeatedly that we have achieved the point in technology where no photograph of anything-alone-is going to be sufficient to PROVE the existence of anything. In this case I am adding these photos here because they illustrate what other witnesses describe as happening. That is their only strong claim to represent any real objects or events and their only value to me. I am not out to say these photos or any other photos actually PROVE anything or even CAN PROVE anything. But I the event they illustrate independently recorded observations, they have that much value at least. I am not out to "Prove" anything to you or to anybody else: I have learned long ago that it is completely useless to try to "Prove" anything to anybody when their mind is already made up. Nor is such an attitude in any way truly scientific, either.


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.