I Saw And Photographed The Loch Ness Monster In 2006

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,881
Likes
27,909
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I never said it was, but it’s pretty funny how everyone here including the mod Yithian dog piled me and mocked me for being scared to show the picture, and what happens when I do? One of your own members puts it in a book and makes money from it. Where are all of you making fun of me for not wanting to get screwed over? I assume you’re getting notifications that this thread is active. Where the laughter and clever insults?
I don't believe the record will reflect your claims, old chap.

You acted like a clown. I have some sympathy for the fact that you have subsequently been exploited, but when I very politely said that I didn't see what you did in the image you started throwing accusations around while mixing up your correspondence and hitting the wrong targets.

As luck would have it, I think I have access to all of our exchange by PM plus all posts we both made here (even those deleted).

If it is easier for you to read them than make a simple retraction of the comment quoted above, I am happy to post the entirety and let the community judge.

Edited to add: I'm not saying that everybody was sweetness and light, but I never picked up pitchfork nor torch.
 

Justin Case

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
46
Likes
56
Points
19
I don't believe the record will reflect your claims, old chap.

You acted like a clown. I have some sympathy for the fact that you have subsequently been exploited, but when I very politely said that I didn't see what you did in the image you started throwing accusations around while mixing up your correspondence and hitting the wrong targets.

As luck would have it, I think I have access to all of our exchange by PM plus all posts we both made here (even those deleted).

If it is easier for you to read them than make a simple retraction of the comment quoted above, I am happy to post the entirety and let the community judge.

Edited to add: I'm not saying that everybody was sweetness and light, but I never picked up pitchfork nor torch.
You accused me of passing off a bird as a giant animal. Anyone can see it’s too big. And I’m the clown? Sure thing.

plus you avoided that your community provoked me, and then ripped me off. And getting ripped off was a concern, which is why I was provoked, and got ripped off as I feared. But please stay lofty.
 
Last edited:

henry

still speeding
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
3,863
Likes
1,095
Points
0
not the boards finest hour, at least i acquitted myself with good humour and unshakeable focus throughout
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,881
Likes
27,909
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
You accused me of passing off a bird as a giant animal.
I cast no aspersions on the motives or judgment of the original poster, to whom I am grateful for posting his experience here.
Next.

plus you avoided that your community provoked me, and then ripped me off. And getting ripped off was a concern, which is why I was provoked, and got ripped off as I feared. But please stay lofty.
I do not own any community, neither did this community rip you off; you appear to have been shoddily treated by a disreputable individual in whom you mistakenly placed your trust. His book and blog have very literally nothing to do with me or this community.

I have just gone back and counted five posts from me on this thread asking for various members to refrain from insults and accusations as well as three direct personal messages sent on the same topic.

Would you have liked me to telephone their mothers?
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,881
Likes
27,909
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Oh look, the ones who can afford to be snarky are the ones who are.
If there is to be no further discussion of your experience or the photograph, we could close this thread.

We look to have entered the heat > light zone.

You are, despite all that has been said, very welcome to browse the board and contribute to other threads.

Edit: Have handed the keys to this thread to the other mods.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,601
Likes
15,866
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
2,163
Likes
2,187
Points
184

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
842
Likes
1,451
Points
134
I'm very sorry that happened, Justin. But none of us can have known that there would be an unscrupulous individual who would do such a thing.
i always said that joker was a fraud
Oh, come on now! Some of us here are getting a tad hoity-toity and precious about Mr Watson's supposed heinous immorality!

As a blogger - and in common with pretty much every other blogger -I wll often use an image without `prior permission`. It would simply take too long to do it any other way. In my case, I will always credit the source, however. (And, since I am often giving publicity to things which - in the West at least - are not that well known - I do imagine that the people whose images I've used would be more pleased than annoyed).

From what I know of the way Mr Watson operates, he too always credits the sources of photographs that he makes use of. In this case, however, the photographer (edited by mod) can't be credited.

It appears that Justin did indeed give permission for Mr Watson to use the photo (which he says was taken by his girlfriend anyway) on his blogspot. This might then have been taken as permission to also use it in his publication - since there is something of a Rizla paper in difference between the two items.

I suspect that Mr Watson's books are `print on demand` cottage industry affairs which are read only by the ever dwindling band of Nessiephiles. As Catseye rightly observed above, it is unlikely that he will be making any real money out of it - it might just about pay for itself. So the question of royalties is a little bit academic.

Anyway, it seems to me that -in the extremely unlikely event - of someone having an image which really shows a large unknown aquatic animal in Loch Ness, then it would be something of a public duty to make the picture avaialble to the public domain - and not to be petty about it.

If you want money you should go straight to the tabloids - but Justin couln't because he's an Important Secret Agent or something - so getting a Nessiephile to put it out there was actually quite a good compromise option

Mr Watson's all right. He's Britain's last remaining Nessie believer and adds to the gaiety of tha nation - and once in a while he comes up with something that give your little greys cells something to ponder over.

At very worst he's maybe guilty of being a bit impulsive or slightly sneaky - but the crime of the century, I think not!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PeteS

Seeking refuge
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
1,052
Likes
2,155
Points
154
Not sure I'd get over excited about not having credit for taking a sketchy piccie of some blob on a bit of water- life's a bit too short for that, but hey ho each to his own.
 

Krepostnoi

Popular orange vegetable
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,835
Likes
5,221
Points
209
It appears that Justin did indeed give permission for Mr Watson to use the photo (which he says was taken by his girlfriend anyway) on his blogspot. This might then have been taken as permission to also use it in his publication - since there is something of a Rizla paper in difference between the two items.
In Justin's defence, I think there is a considerably bigger difference here than you are making out to be the case. It's like saying I can publish information sent to me via DM on here, because, hey, I've got permission to read it, so that means everyone else does, amirite? I think the senders of any such message would rightly be pissed off at me if I did. More generally, I think it's not unreasonable to be pissed off about someone not sticking to their agreements, whether or not a third party thinks the object of the agreement is trivial.

None of which being said reduces my curiosity about whether Justin has a response to @sherbertbizarre's question in post #555.
 

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
2,163
Likes
2,187
Points
184
Sure. That wasn’t where I took it.

Thanks for deleting my comment where I pointed out the snarky condescending post above but leaving the snarky condescending post intact.
The post made points which you disagree with, you are welcome to disagree with them and by all means refute them. Name calling is no use to anyone. Please conduct this discussion civilly.

And as an aside, I wasn’t aware that you took the photograph?
 

Justin Case

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
46
Likes
56
Points
19
The post made points which you disagree with, you are welcome to disagree with them and by all means refute them. Name calling is no use to anyone. Please conduct this discussion civilly.

And as an aside, I wasn’t aware that you took the photograph?
Strange but I don’t recall calling anyone a name, but it’s cool that my profession is being made fun of.

I edited my previous comment. I meant to say where I was and where she took it but what does it matter? The photo wasn’t taken where the analyst said it was and it certainly wasn’t mud on the window.
 

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
2,163
Likes
2,187
Points
184
This discussion is supposed to be on the validity / merits of a specific photograph of the Loch Ness monster. Anything that is not related to this will be removed and will potentially lead to further, appropriate repercussions.
 

CuriousIdent

Not yet SO old Great Old One
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,440
Likes
1,074
Points
184
Location
Warwickshire, England.
I meant to say where I was and where she took it but what does it matter? The photo wasn’t taken where the analyst said it was and it certainly wasn’t mud on the window.
I think the point is that the analyst has matched up points on the landscape which he can demonstrate would match your ex's photo. Let's put the dirt theory to one side for a minute (not saying I agree or disagree with that) but the geographical pinpoint part of his explanation does seem very plausible.

Reading back, you say that this photo was taken through the car window.

Can you recall whether she was the passenger? And was the vehicle stationary or moving at the time?
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,881
Likes
27,909
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Sure. That wasn’t where we saw it.

Thanks for deleting my comment where I pointed out the snarky condescending post above but leaving the snarky condescending post intact.
Would you agree that if you came to the case afresh as a dispassionate third party (who was not there when the image was taken) that his explanation of where it was taken from would be more convincing than yours?

As to your second point: nothing deleted by me.

As I said above, I've recused myself from moderation on this thread and left it to the rest of the team.
 

Justin Case

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
46
Likes
56
Points
19
Oh I see. So making jokes about my career is relevant but not me calling the poster out on it. Now I understand.

I already gave my account. I was driving. She saw it and started freaking out. I pulled over to a lay by while she went for the camera in her bag in the backseat. She was on the side of the car facing the water because we were headed to the castle, and she took the pic through the window. This was 13 years ago and I wasn’t paying attention to the height of trees.
 
Top