I Saw And Photographed The Loch Ness Monster In 2006

Ogdred Weary

Fhtagntastic.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,487
Likes
4,084
Points
159
Ogdred, my brain is doing somersaults trying to remember the origin of your avatar. I seem to remember little people fighting against a gigantic reptilian villain and his inept guards, but I can't track anything down on the internet. Before I tear loose the top of my skull and start rending parts from my brain, could you help me out buddy?
He is Zordrak, main antagonist in The Dreamstone, an early 90s UK cartoon., you're right about the inept guards:

 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,337
Likes
4,909
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Thank you.
I'm very happy for people to venture forth stories that they have never told for fear of being laughed at and to assume that they're telling the truth as best they can. I personally have a minimal interest in the LNM so no urge to believe or not, I think it's great for tourism and I'm all for continuing to try to get a good photo.
But I also come from an investigative profession, and I don't agree that we just want to believe and we stop there. If we have questions that have been answered and it still fits together that can be a big deal. Greenery notwithsanding, someone has put forth a detailed account of a photograph that on one important point could not have been taken as he said. Why would a person do this? What is the thought process? And why should I then be interested in the rest of the tale? And in extreme cases, do we want to encourage a poster in fantasy, which takes time from the readers' other pursuits.
I can only assume that they get a kick out of being in the limelight and enjoying their 15 minutes of fame - even under the anonymity of an avatar.

It was the guy's attitude that ticked everyone off though. As we tend to do here, forumists offered possible natural explanations for the sighting and the OP reacted badly to that.

When we share our potentially Fortean experiences here, I believe the vast majority of us welcome open dialogue to explore all possibilities, whether natural or supernatural.
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,125
Likes
4,844
Points
259
While we have telling evidence, do we have clear proof that this photo is fake?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,540
Points
294
While we have telling evidence, do we have clear proof that this photo is fake?


This strange area of pixels doesn't seem to match the background. Might be something to do with how cameras work, I don't know but on first glance it looks like (to me anyway) something has been altered.

Or is this a normal artefact in digital photography?

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 09.59.37.png Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 09.59.37.png
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,125
Likes
4,844
Points
259
This strange area of pixels doesn't seem to match the background. Might be something to do with how cameras work, I don't know but on first glance it looks like (to me anyway) something has been altered.

Or is this a normal artefact in digital photography?

View attachment 14200 View attachment 14201
Do you mean because they're bigger or because the water seems to be lighter and more complicated around the black shape? Could it be something to do with jpg compression?
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,125
Likes
4,844
Points
259
The rectangle becomes even more obvious with an edge-detect algorithm.

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 09.59.37.png
 

Lb8535

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
498
Likes
940
Points
94
Location
EST
Can you remind me which important point? I am trying to keep up, honest..
I read this a while ago when it was posted, said to myself OK case closed and stopped reading the thread, but as I remember it was clear evidence on the angle andposition of the camera from where he specifically said he had taken it with much corroborating detail. The reply poster had taken the time to walk around the area and found the place that it was most likely taken from. At the time I thought, well why not just tell the truth and then let the photo wonks tear into the photo itself, which is itself not terribly conclusive.
 

Min Bannister

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
3,716
Likes
3,555
Points
184
I read this a while ago when it was posted, said to myself OK case closed and stopped reading the thread, but as I remember it was clear evidence on the angle andposition of the camera from where he specifically said he had taken it with much corroborating detail. The reply poster had taken the time to walk around the area and found the place that it was most likely taken from. At the time I thought, well why not just tell the truth and then let the photo wonks tear into the photo itself, which is itself not terribly conclusive.
Ah okay thank you. I am not convinced by that as it didn't seem to have taken any account of tree growth in the intervening 11 years and I was wondering if there was something non-growing in the photo that would convince me.
 

Lb8535

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
498
Likes
940
Points
94
Location
EST
Ah okay thank you. I am not convinced by that as it didn't seem to have taken any account of tree growth in the intervening 11 years and I was wondering if there was something non-growing in the photo that would convince me.
Again going by a quick re-look there were three or four non-green point of comparison and all did not align.
 

PeteS

Seeking refuge
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
1,052
Likes
2,155
Points
154
This is how we used to work when I was in fraud investigation. You can seldom prove that the person did not once own a Rolex watch, or indeed that they did not drop it over the side of a rowing boat on Windermere. However, if you ask for the whole story from them from when they acquired the watch right through to when they submitted the insurance claim, you will often find inconsistencies and discrepancies.

The behavioural clue is often the huge amount of detail and emotion around the (alleged) incident and a strong contrast between this and the vagueness about the events before and after.

Inconsistencies alone do not prove fraud, but a discrepancy (two facts that cannot both be true, therefore at least one of them must be false) can hole a witness's account bellow the waterline. It depends on how relevant the discrepancy is, and how easily it can be explained away.

I think I got it for my 50th birthday
That model ceased production when you were 47
Oh, it must have been my 45th
Hmm, fair enough... Next question...

Or
I got it for my 40th birthday. I remember it well because my first wife bought it for me and had it engraved with our initials. She left me when was 42.
The model shown in the photo of you wearing it wasn't introduced until you were 45.
B**ger!

In this LNM case, the OP was quite clear about the photo being taken from the lakeside. If something so fundamental to their story and told so confidently is definitely untrue, then all of their uncorroborated account is unreliable.
Again I disagree Mike. Whatever window the photo was taken through does not prove much. I don't see that the window is fundamental to the story and this is the problem of reading too much into one statement in a sequence of statements regarding an event. The existence of the LNM or belief in it is neither enhanced or disproved by the OP's lack of memory or deliberate mis direction regarding the window. In the 20,000+ cases I investigated a small proportion of people acted very strangely , even when the event was totally genuine. That's just people.
Funny you should mention Rolex watches though. Recently I gave my youngest son, a watch collector, my Rolex. I was convinced, absolutely, that this had been purchased in 1965. Had it been subject to an insurance claim I would have been prepared to go before an Oath Commissioner to swear that. Son did some investigation and found that it had been manufactured in 1969! My false memory and the statement about it had no bearing on whether the watch existed or not and the circumstances in which it came into my possession.
 

Mikefule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
417
Likes
1,164
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Again I disagree Mike. Whatever window the photo was taken through does not prove much. I don't see that the window is fundamental to the story and this is the problem of reading too much into one statement in a sequence of statements regarding an event. The existence of the LNM or belief in it is neither enhanced or disproved by the OP's lack of memory or deliberate mis direction regarding the window. In the 20,000+ cases I investigated a small proportion of people acted very strangely , even when the event was totally genuine. That's just people.
Funny you should mention Rolex watches though. Recently I gave my youngest son, a watch collector, my Rolex. I was convinced, absolutely, that this had been purchased in 1965. Had it been subject to an insurance claim I would have been prepared to go before an Oath Commissioner to swear that. Son did some investigation and found that it had been manufactured in 1969! My false memory and the statement about it had no bearing on whether the watch existed or not and the circumstances in which it came into my possession.
You've missed my fundamental points.

There is a qualitative difference between a mistake and a lie. Different aspects of a narrative are more important or less important than others when considering its veracity.

I will make this directly relevant to a hypothetical photo of the LNM (not this particular one) although the principle would apply to any other Fortean subject:

1) A witness says, "I took this photo of the LNM on a family holiday in 1990."

Investigation shows that a building in the background was demolished in 1987, or, alternatively, there is a 1992 registered car in the background.

Investigators challenge the witness who says, "I went on family holidays in the area over a 10 year period. I must have been wrong about the year."

All this proves is that the witness has made an honest mistake over a peripheral detail. Their evidence is neither more nor less reliable than a typical honest person's recollection of events 20–30 years ago.

2) A witness says, "I took this photo of the LNM on my honeymoon. I remember it well. I got married in 1990."

Investigation then reveals evidence that it cannot possibly have been taken in 1990.

The witness has said something very specific, giving a definite reason for their certainty. However, this has since been shown to be untrue. Have they lied or made a mistake? The onus is on them to explain why they were so certain of something that is now discredited. If they cannot do so, I would consider their evidence to be less reliable than average.

I would treat all of their testimony with caution until this had been resolved. For example, they may be able to establish that they also went on a trip to the area with their fiancée 2 years before they got married, or that they went back to celebrate their 5th anniversary. If so, I would accept that they had mixed up two broadly similar life events.

3) A witness says, I clearly remember taking this photo of the LNM. It was 1968. I was a student and went on a fishing trip with my friends. I was fishing by the loch side when I saw some ripples. I stood and watched for a minute or two then remembered my camera was in my rucksack. I took several pictures.

Here, they have given a very detailed account of the circumstances in which they took the picture, something that would have been very memorable.

The witness then submits only one photo. Investigation shows that the photo cannot possibly have been taken from the loch side as it must have been taken from much higher up. Therefore, something that is fundamental to their narrative is untrue in a way that cannot be "explained away". If they have lied about this, then this casts fundamental doubt on their reliability as a witness and as such, all of their uncorroborated testimony is unreliable.

  • I would put the post that started this thread in category 3: a detailed account with a fundamental aspect which has not stood up to investigation.
None of this proves that the LNM does not exist. It only affects how I would assess this particular piece of evidence for its existence.

In the insurance scenario, a person who simply misremembers a date or a price, within reasonable limits, does not invalidate his claim. However, a person who is caught out telling an outright lie about one item will usually find that all of the unproven parts of their claim are rejected or put on hold. In the worst case, their policy may be made void and they will then lose their entire claim.

I used to attend civil court regularly at an earlier stage in my career when I was dealing with motor liability. If a Judge identified one obvious falsehood in a witness's statement, they would often dismiss all of their testimony. If they only identified minor inconsistencies, they would usually just factor this into their decision, saying something like, "No one has come here to lie to the court, but Witness A's account is less reliable than Witness B's."

[Slight edit made under point 3 for clarity. No change to meaning.]
 
Last edited:

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,125
Likes
4,844
Points
259
be interesting to see this applied to a control image
You got one I can use?

I do notice something about the one I posted. There are regular squares across the board: presumably the jpg compression algorithm goes across the picture, looks at squares of this side and simplifies colours within them. So if there's not a lot going on in that square, it will average the colours. However if there is a lot of detail, it won't - throughout the whole square.

The rectangle full of detail fits into this grid perfectly. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is a paste job.
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,125
Likes
4,844
Points
259
it is a different result, i was expecting the entire image to have the grid applied as per first one ... unless you have cropped ?
I cropped into the boat, and zoomed in because the first one was also zoomed. I'll go back to both original images (working from the full size monster one) and try again when I have time.
 

Lb8535

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
498
Likes
940
Points
94
Location
EST
Thanks again Mike. I know that it sounds unfriendly but as business world investigations play out, in a high proportion of situations, when you come across a #3 situation there is something very wrong. It may not be closely related to the question at hand, someone may be unwilling to share full information, but it does taint anything else they say and they shouldn't be surprised when it does.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,540
Points
294
Anyone thought about what the point would be in saying you took the photo from a particular location when in fact you were somewhere else? Isn't that setting yourself up to be found out?

If I were a hoaxer and I had taken the photo, I might be inclined to tell the truth about being in a holiday let as opposed to in a car in a lay-by. The best lies being those that contain some truth. Or are holiday cottages overlooking Loch Ness solely rented by people hoping to see something? Believers, in other words. I know that when I went there the monster wasn't far away from my thoughts even though I saw nothing untoward.
 

Mikefule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
417
Likes
1,164
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Thanks again Mike. I know that it sounds unfriendly but as business world investigations play out, in a high proportion of situations, when you come across a #3 situation there is something very wrong. It may not be closely related to the question at hand, someone may be unwilling to share full information, but it does taint anything else they say and they shouldn't be surprised when it does.
I agree that it may not matter in some business contexts. Say for example that I'm trying to buy several tons of materials and the salesman demonstrably lies to me about how quickly he can deliver some of the goods, or some detail of quality assurance, then I know he's a liar. Nevertheless, I may go ahead with the deal cautiously. The honesty of the other party is only one of several considerations. His competitors may also be liars, or may not be able to supply the goods at all. I make a judgement based on whatever priorities I set. My ex was a double glazing sales manager, and she was more likely to employ someone who could lie convincingly as it was a sign of competence.

In an insurance claims context, the customer already has a contract which explicitly obliges them to provide reasonable evidence and honest information. Sometimes, the only evidence they have is their word. Therefore, if their word is shown to be unreliable, those parts of the claim that are only evidenced by their word, and nothing else (e.g. receipts) may be excluded from the claim. Indeed, a proven lie that is sufficiently material may invalidate the policy and the entire claim. Different rules and considerations.

Similarly, in a litigation, a Judge will try to distinguish between vague, optimistic, or colourful embellished testimony, and outright lies. I have sat in Court and heard a Judge throw out a case with 3 reasonably good witnesses because one witness had obviously lied — which was an extreme approach indeed.

In the case of Fortean claims, such as "I took this photo of the LNM" — and especially where the photo is so indistinct that it needs interpretation — the veracity of the witness is fundamental to how we assess the evidence.

In the unlikely event of a witness producing clear, excellent, consistent digital photos, all unedited, and with the file properties there to be examined, a lie about exactly how they were taken would be less important because the photos would be strong evidence in their own right.


Even in the case that started this discussion, it is not inconceivable that the OP could offer a credible explanation for the discrepancy.

True anecdote to illustrate this principle from my claims days:

A customer explained how he had left his car in the pub car park because he had drunk more than he had intended. He took a bus home intending to collect the car the next day, but when he returned, it had been stolen. He submitted his claim on this basis.

Investigation showed, amongst other things that:
1) The landlord of the pub denied that the customer had been in the pub that night.
2) CCTV for the relevant time did not show the car in the space where the customer said he had parked it.
3) The times of the last bus did not coincide with the customer's story.
4) The customer's alleged journey time could not be true because of the length of the walk from the last bus stop: the journey would have taken considerably longer than he had alleged.

These discrepancies proved that the customer's story was certainly untrue. We therefore challenged him: why had he lied?

His explanation: he admitted he had lied. The reason was that he had really left the car at his girlfriend's house, but he couldn't tell us that in the original phone call because his wife was listening.

We then checked the facts, spoke to the girlfriend, and satisfied ourselves that his revised story was consistent. The car really had been stoeln. The claim was genuine, and the lie was nothing to do with the claim. We paid his claim.
 

PeteS

Seeking refuge
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
1,052
Likes
2,155
Points
154
You've missed my fundamental points.

There is a qualitative difference between a mistake and a lie. Different aspects of a narrative are more important or less important than others when considering its veracity.

I will make this directly relevant to a hypothetical photo of the LNM (not this particular one) although the principle would apply to any other Fortean subject:

1) A witness says, "I took this photo of the LNM on a family holiday in 1990."

Investigation shows that a building in the background was demolished in 1987, or, alternatively, there is a 1992 registered car in the background.

Investigators challenge the witness who says, "I went on family holidays in the area over a 10 year period. I must have been wrong about the year."

All this proves is that the witness has made an honest mistake over a peripheral detail. Their evidence is neither more nor less reliable than a typical honest person's recollection of events 20–30 years ago.

2) A witness says, "I took this photo of the LNM on my honeymoon. I remember it well. I got married in 1990."

Investigation then reveals evidence that it cannot possibly have been taken in 1990.

The witness has said something very specific, giving a definite reason for their certainty. However, this has since been shown to be untrue. Have they lied or made a mistake? The onus is on them to explain why they were so certain of something that is now discredited. If they cannot do so, I would consider their evidence to be less reliable than average.

I would treat all of their testimony with caution until this had been resolved. For example, they may be able to establish that they also went on a trip to the area with their fiancée 2 years before they got married, or that they went back to celebrate their 5th anniversary. If so, I would accept that they had mixed up two broadly similar life events.

3) A witness says, I clearly remember taking this photo of the LNM. It was 1968. I was a student and went on a fishing trip with my friends. I was fishing by the loch side when I saw some ripples. I stood and watched for a minute or two then remembered my camera was in my rucksack. I took several pictures.

Here, they have given a very detailed account of the circumstances in which they took the picture, something that would have been very memorable.

The witness then submits only one photo. Investigation shows that the photo cannot possibly have been taken from the loch side as it must have been taken from much higher up. Therefore, something that is fundamental to their narrative is untrue in a way that cannot be "explained away". If they have lied about this, then this casts fundamental doubt on their reliability as a witness and as such, all of their uncorroborated testimony is unreliable.

  • I would put the post that started this thread in category 3: a detailed account with a fundamental aspect which has not stood up to investigation.
None of this proves that the LNM does not exist. It only affects how I would assess this particular piece of evidence for its existence.

In the insurance scenario, a person who simply misremembers a date or a price, within reasonable limits, does not invalidate his claim. However, a person who is caught out telling an outright lie about one item will usually find that all of the unproven parts of their claim are rejected or put on hold. In the worst case, their policy may be made void and they will then lose their entire claim.

I used to attend civil court regularly at an earlier stage in my career when I was dealing with motor liability. If a Judge identified one obvious falsehood in a witness's statement, they would often dismiss all of their testimony. If they only identified minor inconsistencies, they would usually just factor this into their decision, saying something like, "No one has come here to lie to the court, but Witness A's account is less reliable than Witness B's."

[Slight edit made under point 3 for clarity. No change to meaning.]
No I haven't missed your fundamental points - I simply disagree. And yes the conduct of the OP, as I pointed out much earlier in the thread, throws doubt on the integrity of the circumstances as related. My original point was basically a critique of the third party critique. The window part on its own cannot be used to dismiss the entire story. We are dealing with neither the law nor an insurance claim here of course.
 
Top