I Saw And Photographed The Loch Ness Monster In 2006

[CuriousIdent]

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.

I think that part of the criticism in the analyst's article is that there is no lay by on this stretch of road which would match up with the landmarks.

 

[gordonrutter]

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.

Comment removed, can we now keep the discussion about matters relating directly to the photograph.

 

[hunck]

Justin, do you have a rebuttal to this article?

LINK

I'm getting a blank page with this link. Can you still see it?

 

[Yithian]

I'm getting a blank page with this link. Can you still see it?

Yes.

 

[hunck]

Odd, blank for me. Wonder why that is?

 

[Yithian]

Odd, blank for me. Wonder why that is?

Ad-blocker mistake?

 

[hunck]

Right.. I do run Ad-blocker.

 

[henry]

Comment removed, can we now keep the discussion about matters relating directly to the photograph.

as this is IHTM its the account that matters, including but not limited to the photograph

 

[gordonrutter]

as this is IHTM its the account that matters, including but not limited to the photograph

The account is part of the story of the photograph it’s the name calling and mud slinging I am referring to.

 

[Justin Case]

I think that part of the criticism in the analyst's article is that there is no lay by on this stretch of road which would match up with the landmarks.

I was very honest about my lack of responsibility on the day in question. I had been drinking, and I was driving on a narrow road with a lot of fast crazy drivers. I was a tourist on the wrong side of the car on the wrong side of the road, if you know what I mean. Then the next thing I know, there’s The Loch Ness Monster. It was kind of an overwhelming psychological experience as I described all the way back in my first post.

if you asked me to swear in a court of law that my account is accurate, I would say it’s as accurate as it can be with everything else being as it is. If there is an error in what I’m telling, I don’t know it, but anything is possible. All I know is we were right by the Clansman Hotel (hard name to forget being American) and that area is where I pulled off.

 

[EnolaGaia]

To be fair, there's a reasonably plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancies in identifying the location from which the photo was taken.

Justin was driving south from Inverness toward Urquhart Castle on the northern shore of the loch. The sighting occurred in close proximity to the Clansman Hotel, to which Justin and his ladyfriend went following the sighting and picture-taking.

If you check Google Maps (satellite view) and Street View (on the A82) ...

The Loch Ness Lodge (site on which the cottage identified as the photographer's location in 2018 stands) sits in an elevated position on the north shore. The Loch Ness Lodge's main entrance is a driveway off the A82 circa 100 feet beyond (southward of) the Clansman Hotel (which sits at highway level). This driveway clearly leads upward to the Lodge's elevated position.

If the object was first sighted around the time Justin was driving past the Clansman Hotel, the Loch Ness Lodge's driveway would represent an immediate and convenient place to pull off the highway. It would have taken only a few seconds to drive up the driveway to the vicinity of the cottage and obtain an elevated vantage point for taking the photo.

If the photo had been taken as described (from inside the car; in the vicinity of the detached cottage) the car would not have traveled all the way along the driveway to the Loch Ness Lodge's main building. Simply turning around at / near the cottage and descending the driveway back down to the highway would place Justin and friend within circa 100 feet of the Clansman Hotel, which they subsequently visited.

The minutiae upon which the alleged 2018 location specification was based could well have resulted from differences between cameras / lenses (Justin's ladyfriend's camera versus the 2018 author's tablet) combined with on-scene changes resulting from 12 years' additional growth in the surrounding vegetation.

 

[henry]

maps on my phone has an actual layby right by the clansman, or possibly a bus pull-in ... but regardless there are regular places to pull over on that road, i did a circuit of the loch in 2012, south side was prehistoric, i wouldnt be surprised if theres a dino in the water

 

[Trish71]

Ad-blocker mistake?

Hi, I'm a relatively new member on this forum and I'm really enjoying being part of an open minded community but after reading the exchanges between Justin Case and others, I must admit to feeling a bit taken aback at the amount of hostility being directed at him. It's none of my business but surely that's not what this forum is about?

 

[Trish71]

I was very honest about my lack of responsibility on the day in question. I had been drinking, and I was driving on a narrow road with a lot of fast crazy drivers. I was a tourist on the wrong side of the car on the wrong side of the road, if you know what I mean. Then the next thing I know, there’s The Loch Ness Monster. It was kind of an overwhelming psychological experience as I described all the way back in my first post.

if you asked me to swear in a court of law that my account is accurate, I would say it’s as accurate as it can be with everything else being as it is. If there is an error in what I’m telling, I don’t know it, but anything is possible. All I know is we were right by the Clansman Hotel (hard name to forget being American) and that area is where I pulled off.

What an amazing experience! What (if anything) sticks in your mind about its appearance? (Skin, colour, texture, etc). It's not a cryptid I know a lot about to be honest and I'm curious!!

 

[GNC]

Hi, I'm a relatively new member on this forum and I'm really enjoying being part of an open minded community but after reading the exchanges between Justin Case and others, I must admit to feeling a bit taken aback at the amount of hostility being directed at him. It's none of my business but surely that's not what this forum is about?

He just acted so eccentrically that he pissed a lot of posters off. This thread is pretty bad, but don't take it as indicative of the whole forum. Everywhere has its bad areas!

 

[henry]

Hi, I'm a relatively new member on this forum and I'm really enjoying being part of an open minded community but after reading the exchanges between Justin Case and others, I must admit to feeling a bit taken aback at the amount of hostility being directed at him. It's none of my business but surely that's not what this forum is about?

its as much your business as any other members ... clearly not our finest thread, especially damning as its IHTM ... i think in fairness we could lose a lot of the back biting on this thread and the remaining relevant content would run to half the length it is now

 

[Yithian]

Hi, I'm a relatively new member on this forum and I'm really enjoying being part of an open minded community but after reading the exchanges between Justin Case and others, I must admit to feeling a bit taken aback at the amount of hostility being directed at him. It's none of my business but surely that's not what this forum is about?

Hostility begets hostility.

'The forum' is the union of the database and the active membership: the former is deep yet harmless, but the latter will have your arm off if you wade in hugger mugger and start casting unwarranted aspersions. The reason is simply that we do tend to approach most things with an open mind (more open towards the odd than you'll find most places), but if that openness of spirit is abused by dissimulation, obfuscation or deceit, many will feel as if they have had their time deliberately wasted.

Mr Case returned for a second bite of the cherry and picked up more or less where he left off.

I personally feel convinced by the evidence presented here:

HERE

And don't think the case worth pursuing as a result. Other members may feel otherwise.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

Hostility begets hostility.

'The forum' is the union of the database and the active membership: the former is deep yet harmless, but the latter will have your arm off if you wade in hugger mugger and start casting unwarranted aspersions. The reason is simply that we do tend to approach most things with an open mind (more open towards the odd than you'll find most places), but if that openness of spirit is abused by dissimulation, obfuscation or deceit, many will feel as if they have had their time deliberately wasted.

Mr Case returned for a second bite of the cherry and picked up more or less where he left off.

I personally feel convinced by the evidence presented here:

HERE

And don't think the case worth pursuing as a result. Other members may feel otherwise.

Intriguing but wasn't the image pixelated, suggesting it may have been amended digitally?

 

[Scribbles]

Hostility begets hostility.

'The forum' is the union of the database and the active membership: the former is deep yet harmless, but the latter will have your arm off if you wade in hugger mugger and start casting unwarranted aspersions. The reason is simply that we do tend to approach most things with an open mind (more open towards the odd than you'll find most places), but if that openness of spirit is abused by dissimulation, obfuscation or deceit, many will feel as if they have had their time deliberately wasted.

Mr Case returned for a second bite of the cherry and picked up more or less where he left off.

I personally feel convinced by the evidence presented here:

HERE

And don't think the case worth pursuing as a result. Other members may feel otherwise.

This is where I am. It's only the controversy around the use of the photo that's kept this thread going so long. The photo itself is poor as evidence of any monster and the debunking of where it was taken pretty much finishes it off. I know we often can't help ourselves picking over the bones of these things, but speaking for myself, I still await credible evidence of Nessie.

 

[henry]

the debate over credible evidence is probably better held at cryptozoology than IHTM

 

[Eponastill]

I personally feel convinced by the evidence presented here: HERE.

Goodness, if that isn't the most thorough bit of investigation - the finding of the view itself must surely involve some sort of fortean award If you can't reliably remember whether you took a picture from a car or inside a house, then what's the standard of the rest of your story? And respect to the Helper from Hull. Fibbing isn't likely to go down well round here. Sincere accounts of things that might actually be misperceptions are another thing entirely.

 

[Zeke Newbold]

Goodness, if that isn't the most thorough bit of investigation - the finding of the view itself must surely involve some sort of fortean award If you can't reliably remember whether you took a picture from a car or inside a house, then what's the standard of the rest of your story? And respect to the Helper from Hull. Fibbing isn't likely to go down well round here. Sincere accounts of things that might actually be misperceptions are another thing entirely.

That's setting the bar unreasonably high isn't it? I think in such a situation it would be quite probable - and human - for a person not to recall exactly where they stopped - particularly if it was an area they were not so familiar with and don't go to often.

Enola posted an elaborate - perhaps over elaborate - counter-explanation of the apparent location discrepancies in post 581 above. You can take that or leave it but the investigation you mentioned doesn't close the case.

That said, I'm inclined to doubt the story too.In my case it's more that - after having researched the Loch Ness issue myself (in terms of reading, I mean) I have concluded that it is highly unlikely that there's a large unknown aquatic animal in the Loch.Ergo, pictures of such a thing are not likely to be for real.

Then add to that the witnesses weird defensive prickliness - which could point to a bad conscience, or having something to hide.

 

[Eponastill]

That's setting the bar unreasonably high isn't it? I think in such a situation it would be quite probable - and human - for a person not to recall exactly where they stopped - particularly if it was an area they were not so familiar with and don't go to often.

I agree, Zeke, that the actual location would be unreasonable to remember. But they are quite specific that they're in a car - "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. "
The details are quite specific in every sentence. Yet it's been shown that there is no point on the road that has that view. The view is from the house. They weren't saying 'I remember taking the photo from the car' (which would be a forgivable mis-remembrance). They were saying they remember a sequence of specific things that led up to the photo, none of which could have happened because the photo was taken from the house (I'm arguing that it's harder to make allowances for a long sequence of mis-remembrances).

 

[PeteS]

As I've said before, my own view is that the "wrong window" neither adds nor detracts from the story of what exactly was seen or the existence of the LNM. As Zeke puts it so succinctly though, the "weird defensive prickliness" approach does.

 

[Austin Popper]

There is no wiggle room about the location of the shot. There is a ton of detail in the story, repeated several times. It doesn't wash.

 

[henry]

it takes all kinds

 

[tagemoss]

just one time i'd like to see someone capture hd footage of something "odd", out of focus, grainy images and video of weird stuff are 100% bogus, unless backed up by actual evidence.

 

[henry]

cf. recent ufo photos and vids

 

[Eponastill]

just one time i'd like to see someone capture hd footage of something "odd", out of focus, grainy images and video of weird stuff are 100% bogus, unless backed up by actual evidence.

This is true, tagemoss. But it does assume that the Weirdness is the same stuff as a bird or a table or something, that would show up in HD. And maybe if weirdness like ghosts and black dogs exist, perhaps they're a product of our minds interacting with something intangible in the environment? That is, if they're not total bunk of course, that they could be some sort of legitimate hallucination in our own heads, which wouldn't get captured on a camera. (That doesn't make them very studyable by scientific methods though. Hence the general bunk assessment). I love a nice lake monster, me. Those naughty kelpies for instance.

 

[Austin Popper]

just one time i'd like to see someone capture hd footage of something "odd", out of focus, grainy images and video of weird stuff are 100% bogus, unless backed up by actual evidence.

"Out of focus, grainy images of weird stuff cannot be considered evidence or something real without credible corroboration" is a statement I can agree with. Assuming they are 100% bogus is no more rational than assuming they are 100% real.