New Nessie Photo a Hoax ?

While I do want to believe there could be some real photographic evidence that possibly could be grabbed, given the right place and time.. I don't think George Edwardshas it.

While I have found something somewhat unknown and interesting, I'll jump on this bandwagon just because it's probably the most recent topical bit on Nessie.

Behold the photo of "nessie".  This particular zoom jpeg is courtesy of Huffington Post's article.

And also from Huffington, here's George. Ahh, fifteen minutes of fame can make a man smile.

  

Now just Why am I calling shenanigans on this particular photo? 

Like in crime dramas, you have to look at the facts if someone isn't admitting to something.

What I do find exceptionally fishy to start is that despite George's claims that he didn't want to make the picture public until he had his photo "verified by a team of US military monster experts" ... he sold it on a postcard for his business. 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the US military doesn't actually have a monster hunter expert group, I found this fact alone to be a red flag.  

I have to give full and complete credit to my inspiration once again to Glasgow Boy, and he deserves 110% of this discovery.  You must read his complete post here.

Glasgow Boy is wholly neutral I believe on this picture, but I believe this is a significant point in looking for honesty in George Edwards. In the words of Glasgow Boy:

"I actually was informed of this photograph by a local man back in May when the photograph appeared on a postcard sold by George Edwards from around Easter which is shown below and tells us a bit about George's Nessie hunting history."

Okay. Enough about that. Use your own judgement.

Here is George's description of the event on November 11, 2011:
“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. 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.”

George apparently watched this hump from half a mile away for f to 10 minutes.  He snapped a picture with a samsung digital camera he keeps on his boat.

Hold the phone.. here's a claimed "nessie hunter" who takes tourists out on his boat "Nessie Hunter IV" on tours of the loch.  He spends 60 hours on the loch a week - presumably showing tourists around - a man who has been looking for substantial proof for 26 years.  Now he grabs his digital camera (unknown what model it is, but with all this in mind, it's certainly a good one).  He lines up the wee beastie in his camera's sights and takes.... one picture.

Up to 10 minutes watching a chance of a lifetime. A historic event.  Thousands of jpegs fit on one small memory card, 26 years for this moment..    and...  one picture.

Are you kidding me??
That right there ends it for me.  Toe-tag it and send it off to the morgue of nessie hoaxes.

But I will give George Edwards props for using this to promote awareness of his excellent Loch Ness Tour business.

If I went there, I would absolutely sign up for a tour, anyone this dedicated deserves my business.  

The 1933 Hugh Gray Photo

Thanks to Glasgow Boy - a brilliant Nessie blogger who takes a neutral and serious look at the varying and diverse (and sometimes contrasting) evidence - I was inspired to look at the 1933 Hugh Gray photograph and see if I could project a monster of my own out of this image.

Glasgow Boy's informative post on his own projection of what is in the picture is here.
You must read it in order to understand where I'm going with this.

I won't repost any of Glasgow Boy's wonderful work, with the exception of Hugh Gray's own testimony of what he saw on November 12th in 1933.

"Four Sundays ago after church I went for my usual walk near where the river enters the Loch. The Loch was like a mill pond and the sun shining brightly. An object of considerable dimensions rose out of the water not very far from where I was. I immediately got my camera ready and snapped the object which was two or three feet above the surface of the water. I did not see any head, for what I took to be the front parts were under the water, but there was considerable movement from what seemed to be the tail, the part furthest from me. The object only appeared for a few minutes then sank out of sight."

From the original wide angle picture, I was able to see what looked to be a tail, perhaps a dorsal fin or flipper curled up in the air as if the creature was rolling over and changing direction - much like an otter does - and what appeared to be the shadow of a second fin under the water.  Maybe a bit too zealous, I also projected a long tail trailing behind (submerged) using some shadowing in the water which could be submerged length further away from the camera.  If the animal is rolling its body and turning away (see arrow for proposed direction), the tail would no doubt follow the same movement in the water as the neck & body. I believe the darkness behind the body fits with this shape and movement.

What I did come up with does look rather prehistoric.
Do you see it - or is it just a trick of perception? ;)
More importantly.. when you look back at the original photograph - can you "not see" it anymore - or is it convincing enough that you see it in the original without the projected body shape. ;)

Below is the original - credits to Glasgow Boy - for this scan.

 

 
And here's the reveal ...  could this be there?

The arrow represents the animal arching back under the water.. this is why the frontmost flipper came up in the air as the creature is at the water's surface.  The back flipper is clearly a shadow close to the surface of the water. It's body is twisted.  The light parts are reflecting the sun you can see reflected in the water in the top left, while the dark parts are the dark color of the animal itself.  

It's head is turned on the side as it is turning it's body while changing direction away from the camera. I've projected a darkened portion of the photo which seems to be tail-like, assuming this would be near the surface enough to see a shadow (sorry about the blobby tail bit. Drawing with a mouse is like drawing with a rock. lol. )    I've also projected a jawline, head shape and possible eye location so you can see it a bit better.

Also for reference. I have added waterline estimations of the animal.  Because even I was losing track which parts were underwater once I traced the creature out.  :-p