Wednesday, 20 September 2017

Some Nessie Photos from William Jobes?




William Jobes will be known to many of us for his Nessie photographs which appeared in the press back in 2011. I will be saying more about that when I come back from Loch Ness next week, but William emailed me some more photos he took back in 2011 which are now published here for the first time.

This sequence of pictures was taken when William returned to the loch three months later on the 31st August 2011. He was at the Fort Augustus boat jetty near the old Abbey on the morning at 7:36am. He noticed a disturbance in the water about 400-500 yards out in Borlum Bay and began to take photos. The sequence began with this water disturbance below and ended with the object we see on the surface in the first picture. All in all, the episode only lasted seconds before the object was gone.




The reason these stills have lain dormant these past six years is because William lost the original images when his laptop died and all he had left were these enlarged images which we show today. Despite that, I thought they were still worth publishing to generate discussion and get lake cryptid people up to date on what objects continue to be snapped at Loch Ness.



What it could be will obviously produce some varied opinions, some more sensible than others. The more conventional explanations of driftwood, wreckage or a deer seem less convincing since the object was visible for only seconds. From a Nessie point of view, it has that aspect which reminds me of those who describe a more horse like appearance to the creature. In fact, this image reminds me of the John Mclean account from 1938.

William took some other pictures during that trip which I show below. Indeed, this picture below was taken on the same day, only four minutes before at 7:32am from the same place at the Fort Augustus Abbey jetty. The pictures were taken with a Canon EOS 550 camera and a Canon 55-250 lens.




Since this was taken near the old Abbey, it was natural of William to suggest this reminded him of that famous sighting by the late Fr. Gregory Brusey in 1971. Indeed, a drawing done by the man himself was done for William years back is shown below for comparison.




Now the thing I have to point out here is that William takes a prodigious amount of photos on his many visits to the loch. So, when he gets back home, it is down to examining the myriad of images for anything that he may have missed the first time round. This image was one of those instances where he shoots first and ask questions later.

So, in that context, he did not see anything at the time and only noticed when he went through the many images at home. I asked whether the boatmen in the foreground of the picture had acted as if they had seen anything and he said they did not. Indeed, looking at the photo, they seem rather preoccupied with their own affairs.

I suggested that since the object looked a bit sharper than its surroundings that it may have been a fleck of material that temporarily stuck to his lens, but William said that there was no irregularities on the following few frames and nothing on the lens around the time of shooting as he regularly checked through the viewfinder.

Pole like Nessie reports are a fascinating aspect of the mystery and I covered them in a previous article. Various explanations were posited for this special class of report including  jumping fish, birds, buoys, driftwood, hoaxes and, of course, the creature itself.

The fact that the two objects were photographed a mere four minutes apart made me wonder if they were different aspects of the same creature. Again, William thought it unlikely the distance between the two locations could have been covered in four minutes.

So, two photos of interest, at least one of which may well be an image of the famous Loch Ness Monster. Just the motivation I need before I head off to the loch tomorrow!


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com


52 comments:

  1. Very interesting indeed. The head and neck image and the 'pole-like' image do not resemble any known animals, nor do they look anything like tree debris. These may be the most significant images at Loch Ness for decades. Thank you to the photographer and the article author, great stuff. My opinion is that the two images I mention show the mystery animals of Loch Ness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, i consider the Johnson images better proof.

      Delete
    2. Do you mean Johnston rather than Johnson? If so I do agree they are very good evidence. These photos must be the best in the public domain since Johnston's.

      Delete
  2. A fleck on the lens would not show anything as sharp as that. Something on the sensor would be more likely, but in my experience such things stick around and show up on many photos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's obvious to me that here we have the kind of evidence for LNMs which the sceptical community is always saying we don't provide. As good proof as anyone could ask for that these animals are real. Bravo!

      Delete
    2. True enough. Dirt on the sensor also tends to be more nebulous looking than sharp, under normal circumstances.

      Delete
  3. How did he have the first images saved if he lost all his photographs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A pc technician managed to recover some but not all files.

      Delete
  4. Reminds me of the Richard Collis video clip.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>>>>As good proof as anyone could ask for that these animals are real. Bravo!>>>>>

    Not really sure if you are overusing your sarcastic muscle Willie Boy but this as evidence is pretty ropey. As anyone with the "EDIT" function on their photo software on their basic PC can see the suspiciously black and sharp " heads and neck " enlargements look as if they have been tampered with digitally.
    Is it even Loch Ness for goodness sake ?

    Come on, we need better than this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure you are not overusing the sceptical muscle, John as your explanation is pretty ropey as well? The fact that you cannot bring yourself to even accept it was taken at loch ness says it all for me.

      Delete
    2. Having seen the debating styles of sceptics on this website and other parts of the internet, I've always been careful to avoid engaging with comments such as this one. However, on this occasion I will respond. I don't do 'sarcasm', because I feel it's a cheap and lazy way for people to make a point.

      My name is Will, not 'Willie Boy'. I'd prefer you to use the name Will if you don't mind. It's easier to type anyway.

      The images do not look faked to me at all. I can see from numerous articles on this website and elsewhere that there's a core of sceptics who instantly shout 'Fake!' the moment they see any photo they can't easily explain. Shouting fake doesn't make it so. I repeat what I said earlier, here we have solid proof that these animals are real. Some who are rigid in their beliefs will reject this proof: of that there is no doubt.

      John Rutherford, even if the next photos are better than these, you'll still be repeating the same line about needing better.

      Delete
    3. Moving past the issue of traceability (Mr Jobes would do well to invest in an external hard drive or a cloud account), I notice a lot of noise on these photos. My guess is that the photos have been brightened in a program such as Photoshop, and this can make noise very visible when the photo has been underexposed (probably due to the camera exposing for the very bright water). The noise is presented as grain and colour blotches, which seems to be distributed evenly across the photo, including the 'object'. The same applies to the splash photo. Also, there appears to be colour fringing, which is a lens effect, and again that is evenly distributed. In other words, the object looks like an original part of the photo to me. It appears to be in the same focus as the surrounding area. I can't see any manipulation, if there is any.

      There are certainly ways to manipulate photos to add those effects, but it is much easier just to take the picture.

      The 'pole' photo is less convincing to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just doesn't look right. I can't see any signs of manipulation here either but my instinct after years as a photographer is not unequivocal.

      It would be nice to have a truck load of positives about these shots, but it has to be balanced with reality. As it happens, I had this camera / lens combination, so I'm well versed in how it works.

      Delete
    4. "There are certainly ways to manipulate photos to add those effects, but it is much easier just to take the picture." Yes, I agree, but we are talking about the LNM. If this (a picture of Nessie) was an easy photo to take we would not be having this discussion. But really, that "pole"shot is hard to accept as evidence. OK - for the moment let us agree that Jobes did not see the "object" when he took the photo. So what was he taking a picture of? The boat is not centered, in fact it is cut off. But the "object" he did not see is perfectly centered...

      Delete
    5. It is a cropped picture, so it will be centred by choice.

      Delete
    6. When I said it's easier to take the photo, I wasn't meaning it's easier to take a photo of the creature. I just meant it's much easier to take an honest photo than to try to add these effects. A lot of people wouldn't even have thought about digital noise from the camera and chromatic aberration from the lens, but that's not so say it's an impossible leap. All in all, there's not one thing I notice in either of the first 2 photos that looks manipulated. Of course, it's easier to manipulate a low resolution photo that is overbrightened (if that is the case) around the object in question, but I can't say this did or didn't happen. I'm fairly sure I could have created this image myself if given some time, but I'm not saying that's what's happened here. Unfortunately, due to the low resolution and lack of original file, a lot will remain unanswered. The man has either to be taken on trust or not.

      Delete
  6. Shouting "Solid Proof" also doesn't make it solid proof I'm sure you'll agree, BTW, in real crime as in real Nessie World solid proof is a body or part thereof, or even some DNA. Sadly such manna has not been forthcoming in the many decades of searching.

    No wonder so many students of loch Ness lore reluctantly stay in the sceptic side of the fence when yet another inconclusive blurry close-up is greeted with such unwarranted elation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's blatantly a Loch Ness Monster. Why does it upset you so?

      Delete
    2. You can't say that, you don't know what it is. No-one wants it to be the LNM more than me, but we have to be realistic. Realistically in this age, we need the original untouched raw (akin to a digital negative) file before we can start to analyse images with the scrutiny we need to. I wouldn't attempt to push anything less because, as a simple matter of fact, anything less can be manipulated.

      Delete
    3. The issue I have with scepticism is that it's a position which says that literally every sighting report and every photo and video were all mistakes or hoaxes. It's a blanket position, i.e. sceptics default to it instantly on every case presented to them. It feels lazy and anti-investigation. OK these photos might not be genuine, but it's my feeling that they are. People like Jonathan Rutherford apply the broad brush of scepticism to everything that comes along. They don't just question, they dismiss instantly. The same thing in reverse might be said about me, but it would be wrong because there are a few cases which I think were hoaxes or mistakes. I don't have a blanket position of believing every report and photo.

      Delete
    4. Well, William Jobes is not shouting from the roof tops about it, since he lost the original image, he knows the force of the picture has diminished. Hence his reticence in promoting it.

      Delete
    5. Will, if you read any of my contributions you would realise that I am not sceptical in the least. I firmly believe that there is, or was, something wholly unexplained in various lochs in Scotland. However, blind faith have got manys a person killed. I don't know Mr Jobes, nor does he know me. I have thought I've known people for many years, but then I find I don't. I'm simply using my eye as a photographer, which I hope I have trained a little, to say what I see. I am certainly not calling into question Mr Jobes or his honesty. As to the strength of the evidence, there are positives and negatives which I have commented on, and it's up to the individual to draw a conclusion. But if we end up as either abject sceptics or believers without question, it certainly does no good to the cause.

      Delete
    6. Wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, Martin. Please see my comments relating to this "2006 sighting", and you'll realise I know a hoax when I see one: http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/a-sighting-from-2006.html?m=1

      Delete
  7. Roland, have you met the photographer personally? You're very level headed about the phenomenon and I think are in a very good position to form an opinion about the credibility of Mr. Jobes if so. Does he pass muster in your opinion? The 1st photo, with the large head, certainly doesn't fit the "identikit" of the LNM, but it could be that it's swimming from left to right, and turned it's upper neck towards the camera just as it was being snapped. Then the apex of what looks like the 'head' could indeed be a bend in the long neck, and a portion of neck and small head fill out the portion to the viewers right of the apex. Due to the distance it would all appear as one dark mass or 'big head'. Hmmmm The pole like object (shades of Father Brusey and the Smiths!) and water disturbance I'll leave to others to discuss. Anyway, great site - great, thought provoking content - great research into the background of sightings or photos we thought we knew well. Keep the surprises coming!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I have met William and discussed his pictures as well as continuing the conversation by email. I don't think he is trying to deceive anyone.

      Delete
  8. Is it just me or does anyone else see what looks like the tail section of a seal in the photographs?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have to say I’m less enthused about these pics than some of you seem to be.

    The ‘pole’ object just doesn’t look natural to me.
    I’m not seeing an object that looks animate or in the water.

    The other 2 images? Not sure. However, surely the fact there’s diving going on in the water - as evidenced by the pic with the boat in the foreground - throws a bit of a question mark over them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, well William admits he didn't see it himself. He is just putting this out for opinions. He would like to know what it was as well.

      Delete
  10. I've seen the pole like object at the end of the Anderson "Champ" video shot on Lake Champlain summer of 2012. Although this video was much maligned by commenters on Cryptomundo I've gone through it frame by frame and insist that the objects are living animals. What it helps prove to me is that at least Champ and Nessy are the same thing and perhaps other lake monsters are the same thing too. The "pole" may be an appendage IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have seen a pole like object on Lake Champlain. It was very straight, and seemed to emerge/submerge in a straight up and down fashion. This was viewed from the ferry at Burlington, heading towards NY. I do not doubt what I saw, but it also did not appear to fit the usual description of Champ...

      Delete
  11. Call me cynical but Im suspicious about the whole affair. How would he lose some photographs and not the others? then a few years later get them back? And how lucky would he be sighting the monster and taking a photo, then 3 months later seeing the monster again and in 2 different locations? I think he is trying to pull one on you Roland if im bin honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am satisfied with his explanation, but I don't think it was years later. As for luck, well he hasn't had much before (40 years) and after!

      Delete
    2. So if it wasn't years later why have we not seen them before? I am all for new material but sorry this just does not add up.

      Delete
    3. Gezza, in what manner would you have expected to have seen them before?

      Delete
    4. It just seems like he might - might - have stumbled on a good faking technique. The no success for years followed by sightings/photos on a regular basis sounds too much like Searle...

      Delete
    5. poor gezza,ever since geordy skeptic was dethroned things just arent the same around here anymore,skepticly spesking of course!

      Delete
    6. The same as im seeing them now.

      Delete
    7. I don't understand why non-sceptics are dismissing these photos so readily. Like people are actively looking for an angle to disbelieve. Much like the Smith film. That film is good quality evidence which stands up well, but the presence in the area of some schoolboys who claimed to be carrying out a prank causes the less scientific among us to dismiss the film without further analysis. If you're going to call something fake you need strong evidence to back your accusation, not just a feeling.

      Delete
    8. I certainly don't think this pole image has anything to do with Adrian Shine's bobbing post experiments. :)

      Delete
  12. Much as I'd like there to be positive evidence for the existence of unidentified aquatic creatures in Loch Ness, these pics provide thought and debate, but little in the way of evidence.

    I'm only going on my first instinct, which is hardly scientific, but my reaction was "No." The pole-like object seems just that, a pole-like object, and the divers in one of the pics seem blithely unaware of anything unusual going on.

    Hope I'm proved wrong though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's hard to think of a species or genus of large animal [ real or mythical ] that possess a body, headless neck or limb so straight and regular that it can be likened to a telegraph pole. Such linear appendages don't happen in nature, the narwhal tusk being a rare exception.

    Unless we have two species of Nessie [ Please no ] a land nessie and a an aquatic one
    it's hard to reconcile the rippling, sinewy creature spotted by Munro and Spicer with the featureless, straight pole-like creature seen by others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to start using your imagination John. Think outside the box. It's the only way scientific frontiers expand. Animals can change shape depending on what they're doing. An example: https://youtu.be/os6HD-sCRn8

      Delete
  14. Its the loss of the photo's that concern me, along with the fact he had 2 lots of sightings and photo's within 2 visits, and in the previous write up on his first photo someone claimed there was a lot of debris in the loch at the time because of very strong winds in the area.Now the photo's could pass for an animal of course but they could also pass for debris in the water. I just think we should be careful on this one Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am doing a piece on William's better known 2011 pics soon, so will address any points there.

      Delete
  15. Neither shows any water disturbance. Even if it was the Loch Ness Monster they'd be poor evidence. They also got me thinking... do you have to go back to Rhines' flipper/head and neck photos, themselves of dubious origin, to find an image of the LNM that would remotely be accepted by the scientific community? So... 40 years for a decent pic? Long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many cases of these animals showing their heads and necks with little or no water disturbance. The lack of such disturbance in these photos does nothing to weaken them as evidence. Would they be accepted as evidence by the scientific community? Publicly no, privately yes I would say, at least in some cases. As I'm sure you're aware, scientists tend to shy away from expressing interest in these animals, due to the potential impact on careers. But you can be sure that many of them are intrigued and follow sites such as this one.

      Delete
    2. I disagree regarding the lack of surface disturbance. I can see a clear break in the water running along the distance line where the 'object' breaks the surface. The overexposure of the water will obscure details, another reason that the original digital negative files would be good dust in this investigation. The amount of detail that can be recovered, that isn't visible at the moment, is huge. My instinct is that the photos have been substantially brightened already, possibly obscuring detail in the highlight areas. This would be rather unsophisticated, leaving the images open to much more detail recovery. If it was my laptop, I'd be sending it to whoever could bring it back from the dead, at whatever cost I could afford.

      Delete
    3. Apologies, that should say 'gold dust'. What I'm trying to convey is the immense value of a digital negative file over a jpeg. 1: They can't be manipulated without leaving a 'sidecar' file containing details of the manipulations (which mostly concern very basic manipulations and not of the type where you could superimpose an object). 2: They can, depending on the camera, contain much more detail than is visible to the eye, much more than a jpeg file (which is compressed and throws most of this extra information away to save space). Mr Jobes' camera is a little older, but still good. The amount of data hiding in the raw file from a Canon 550d is substantial, if one could get their hands on it.

      Delete
    4. Thanks, Martin. William would likley be aware of the fallout from having no original image, hence his reticence to originally put it out there.

      Delete
    5. My understanding of the subject is that all but the keenest photographers tend to shoot in JPG format rather than huge RAW files. Would the original file really show much more?

      Delete