New picture of Loch Ness Monster raises more questions

Inverness Courier | News | Could this be the Loch Ness Monster?.

Shot by George Edwards — who has led Nessie hunts as part of his Loch Ness Cruise business in Drumnadrochit for the past 26 years — it shows a mysterious dark hump moving in the water towards Urquhart Castle.

“I was just about to return to Temple Pier (in Drumnadrochit) and I went to the back of the boat which was facing the pier and that’s when I saw it,” said 60-year-old Mr Edwards, a lifelong believer in the monster.

“It was slowly moving up the loch towards Urquhart Castle and it was a dark grey colour.

“It was quite a fair way from the boat, probably about half a mile away but it’s difficult to tell in water.”

After watching the object for five to 10 minutes, Mr Edwards said it slowly sank below the surface and never resurfaced.

Mr Edwards took the photo at 9am on 2nd November last year but before releasing it publicly sent it to the USA for analysis.

Tip: Fortean Times Breaking News

Photo credit: George Edwards/CASCADE NEWS

Edwards is touting that he had the photo analyzed. “I have friends in the USA who have friends in the military. They had my photo analysed and they have no doubt that I photographed an animate object in the water.” I have no idea what that means if anything. Edwards has taken another photograph back in the 80’s.

Nessie hunters claim it is NOT a sturgeon. Sturgeons have actually not been found in the Loch but remain a possibility for some as an explanation.

But I wonder… Edwards did not mention it moved other than sank into the water after a while. He was very far away. Why didn’t it move? What part of the animal would this be?

While this is not a blurry picture, it also gives us basically no details. I am highly suspicious. So, have it everyone.

UPDATE (4-Aug-2012) As expected, this new photo went all over the web yesterday. Benjamin Radford at Live Science, who wrote a book on lake monster mysteries, leans toward something real in the water (not a hoaxed photo) but what the thing actually IS is far from clear. He also tends toward log or piece of tree. I’ve seen upturned canoe as an option. But it CAN be something we’re not going to guess correctly. What it LIKELY IS NOT, is a an unknown species as yet to be catalogued by science. Possible? Yes. Likely? Hardly. But it is certainly good for tourism to the Loch.

Tweets from Darren Naish give us two more things to keep in mind:
[tweet_embed id=231857380705574912] [tweet_embed id=232079673956397056]

  38 comments for “New picture of Loch Ness Monster raises more questions

  1. Erich
    August 3, 2012 at 8:26 AM

    If he’s half a mile away, from the angle of the picture he’s got to be hundreds of feet in the air, doesn’t he?

  2. Dave
    August 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM

    He’s been searching for the monster for decades, watches it for 5 to 10 minutes and takes…um, let’s see… ONE photograph.


  3. The Prof
    August 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM

    Umm. So, it seems, the US military have ‘monster experts’ no wonder the government spend 38% of their GDP on defense. I suppose they also have gnome experts, werewolf experts, Yeti experts,etc. It would have been a good idea to have experts on floating branches and/or logs, which is what is in the picture. I have been to the Loch and seen all sorts of floating debris, just like the one in the picture. Monsters? No tree parts.

  4. Andrew Webster
    August 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM

    Some weird wake coming off that thing. Has anyone analyzed this for photo-shopping?

  5. Dougie
    August 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM

    Lets remember the weather here in Braveheart country has been lousy this summer and all the tourist industry people are looking at a very lean take for the season. Now Nessie has made her appearance there may be a wee flurry of bookings or an influx of daytrippers spending their holiday money hoping for a glimpse of beastie.

  6. August 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    Since he knows where he was and the focal length, finding the distance and size of the object would be simple. It would certainly take a lot less than 26 years, and it’s pretty important you would think.

  7. Paul
    August 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

    Could be anything

  8. Iain C
    August 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    The Japanese have those military monster experts as well, you never know when Gozirra will lay waste to down town Tokyo.

  9. spookyparadigm
    August 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    I will admit, that is a very nicely composed photo.

  10. LREKing
    August 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    It’s a thing. In the water. That is all.

  11. LREKing
    August 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

    This is what he has to show for 26 years’ work. How sad is that?

  12. LREKing
    August 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    Astral projection!

  13. Vinny Giardina
    August 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

    Maybe he used a right-angle lens.

  14. August 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM

    The Daily Mail story jumped off the edge into the fanciful, as usual by saying the “image was verified by team of US military monster experts”. There are obviously no such things as true monster experts and NOT in the military. So this is utterly ridiculous.

    Note that George Edwards holds tours of the Loch. Whether this photo is on the up and up, he will likely gain from any increased exposure.

    Where was he standing for this picture? Why does the wake look weird? Why only one picture? Why was it moving so slow (if at all)?

    Best evidence? Of WHAT?

  15. xxi_centuryboy
    August 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    I am glad they ruled out the only other possible thing it could be, a sturgeon! No Sturgeon = Dinosaur?

  16. August 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

    Well, extinct marine reptile.

  17. oldebabe
    August 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

    The first thing I thought of/saw was a `whale’, but whatever it is, if it is an actual photo of the real thing, it seems to be immobile, and of course no spout, so not a whale?

    Whatever it is,it’s only a thing that this guy photographed, and has passed around, and purports it to be, or implies that it is.
    Same old same old, and equals nothing.

  18. Pete
    August 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

    Yes, other photos have played tricks with scale. We need to know the size.

  19. Massachusetts
    August 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

    Good summary of all the issues and points of concern. I think the military aspect is interesting, because they are feeding off people’s respect for the military: the belief that they really “know there stuff”, whether or not it impinges on areas they couldn’t possibly know anything about, and possibly a feeling many might have that you’re being unpatriotic if you question a military assessment.

  20. Phil
    August 4, 2012 at 12:04 AM

    There’s no wake at all. Looks like it died.

  21. X
    August 4, 2012 at 2:03 AM

    It’s an upturned canoe.

  22. Rich Johnson
    August 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM

    To the casual observer, it does appear to be a photograph of a real object. The ‘wake’ seems more like waves reflecting back from it than being caused by it moving through the water.

    This ‘quite a way/half mile from the boat’ claim is very vague, as others have said. To my eye, the object does not seem to be very far at all from the camera, certainly not half a mile. Perhaps the reason Nessie is hard to find is that it’s only three feet long.

  23. August 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    Looks like a rock, even the ripple make it look like a rock or upside down boat.
    Or it could actually be a new stealth submarine yeah that more plausible than time shifting immortal dinosaur.

  24. August 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM

    Then get it its still fresh and lets have a barbie with ale.

  25. LREKing
    August 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM

    It does look like a rock, but if it were a rock, you’d think no one would be surprised to see it there. You would also expect it to be marked as a navigation hazard.

  26. LREKing
    August 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM

    My brain tells me that if the waves are the size I would expect, the photo was taken from well above the surface of the water (as someone else has pointed out). If it was taken from the surface, then the waves are a lot smaller than I would expect, and so was the object.

  27. LREKing
    August 6, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    Given how many times the Japanese military have battled Godzilla and the like, I would not be surprised to find that the U.S. military has “monster experts” of its own. It’s only a matter of time…

  28. LREKing
    August 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    The joys of being an omnivore.

  29. mitcheroo
    August 6, 2012 at 9:16 PM

    38 percent of our GDP on defense? Our entire federal budget isn’t even 30 percent of GDP.

    Anyway, I’d avoid using anecdotes from monster hunters with friends who have friends in the US military as a gauge of technical prowess.

  30. Bob
    August 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    Let’s see, a long time Nessie hunter sees an object in Loch Ness and watches it for 5 – 10 minutes but only has one photo that was NOT taken from the back of a boat, unless the boat was an aircraft carrier! Anyone who knows anything about geometry can tell that this photo was taken from a considerable height above the water, especially if the object was “1/2 mile away”. I’ve taken lots of photos on bodies of water, and none of them have had such a perspective – not even the ones I’ve taken of whales from whale-watching ships.

  31. Bob
    August 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    I should have made clear that there is no way this object was 1/2 mile from where the photo was taken unless the photographer was on a much bigger boat than you are likely to find in Loch Ness. It also appears that the angle of view is too wide for this photo to have been taken with a long telephoto lens, as would have been necessary to photograph an object that was half a mile away.

  32. Chew
    August 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

    Hayley Stevens just put up an article about this photo: The problems with the latest Nessie photo | Hayley is a ghost

    Note the postcard. Note the size of the boat in the postcard. Note how low in the water the boat in the postcard sits. Note how there is no freaking way that picture was taken from that boat and the object was half a mile away.

    It is sometimes difficult to estimate distances over the water but no one could confuse half a mile with 100 feet.

  33. bill turnbull
    August 15, 2012 at 1:22 PM

    I noticed that too.

    He observed for 5 – ten minutes while it “slowly moved” (contrary to comment by Doubtful, above), he couldn’t get closer try try to get a better picture? He only got one shot in 5+ minutes?

    Millions of pounds in free advertising, can anyone spell “gullible”?.

  34. August 21, 2012 at 8:05 PM

    GREAT! I was looking for a link to this besides Drinon’s.

  35. Paul V Ruggeri
    August 22, 2012 at 6:01 PM

    There is a pond here in RI at Roger Williams Park zoo, where, a century and a half ago it was part of a private estate. The owners filled the pond with Japanese Coi and goldfish. The pond has since become part of the park of the larger park and zoo.

    Since then, over many generations the Coi and goldfish have reverted to their more common “unselected” of carp. They are large (well over a foot, it seems, for some of them), have large scales and often swim into water that is half as shallow as their height. The effect is a large asymmetrical hump with large brownish scales protruding above the waterline. No dorsal fin, because I presume that out of water it just lays flat. At first, it looked very strange, kind of reptilian (a bit shocking even) and very prehistoric. I had even seen a few breaking the surface further out in the lake, further fueling the mystery. I was honestly flummoxed and (stupidly – cuz hundreds of people must see this every day) half convinced I had discovered something new… until I asked the docents at the zoo and did a little research into the history of the park and zoo. After that it’s been my opinion that wild carp (even though introduced and now invasive in this case) look a LOT more awesome than Coi or goldfish. One of the cool side-effects of skepticism… LOL.

    The ‘hump’ in this new Nessie pic looks very much like this – not saying it is a carp mind you, just saying it looks like it *may* be some kind of fish.

  36. Paul V Ruggeri
    August 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM

    My Aunt Bertha has only one buttock. Could even be her.

    September 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

    It looks like a log or upside down canoe. Or maybe trash that blew in the water.

Comments are closed.