Breaking News: New Photo of Loch Ness Monster

Is this the Loch Ness Monster, a new rare photo of a Nessie? It was taken from the banks of Loch Ness, in Scotland; this copyrighted [© Richard Preston] image is being published all over the UK. And now the world.

Richard Preston, a landscape designer, was working on Aldourie Castle gardens on the southern shores of Loch Ness, when the 27-year-old Yorkshireman spotted a shape on the loch’s surface out of the corner of his eye. The object caught his attention at about 3 pm. The images were taken from the grounds of the castle looking towards Lochend.

“It was a glimmer,” Preston reported to The Inverness Courier. “It was like a reflection. The rest of the water was still and dark. It was quite odd. I was gobsmacked. I have been working here for the last two or three years and have never seen anything like it.”

He told the media: “I was just walking through the castle gardens and I spotted something in the distance. When I looked closer I could clearly see the four hump-like features. I thought I’d take a picture of it, to see if there was anything in it, to see what others thought. I was surprised that it stayed there as long as it did. I took various shots of it before it suddenly disappeared. I literally just turned my back and it was gone.”

When asked whether or not he believed in the Loch Ness Monsters, Richard Preston replied: “Well there’s definitely something in the myth. There were no ripples in the water, no boats, nothing around. I have no idea what it was, but it undoubtedly looks like Nessie,” said to STV News.

“I am not saying it is the monster. But I don’t see any reason why it cannot be some sort of a sea-going beast,” Preston told The Inverness Courier.

The pro and con camps are lining up already.

Full-time Nessie hunter Steve Feltham, who lives in a former mobile library (a “caravan” or “trailer,” depending if you are Scottish or American) parked by Dores beach, had this to say: “I am quite excited about these photographs. To me, they are unexplained and Richard is a reliable character. About three-quarters of the way across, you can see what looks like three humps. Initially, I thought they could be the wake of a boat. But there are several photos and the image does not move, whereas if it was a boat wake it would move along to the shore. I don’t know what it is. ”

Loch Ness Monster debunker Adrian Shine, who runs the Loch Ness Project, described the new photo to The Inverness Courier as “interesting but suggested it could be the reflection of the sun on the water, perhaps against a house or leaves.”


(An intriguing and irritating footnote in the reporting coming out of Scotland, no one is saying exactly what day Mr. Preston took his photo. I shall revise and update this posting when this simple fact becomes clear!)

What do you think? A chalky-looking cryptid? A casual misidentification? A fake? A modern mystery captured by a camera? Foam? You be the judge.

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.

Leave a Reply

  1. I would like it to be real but until it is looked into more I’m a skeptic.

    But it would be great if it was because I heard that Nessie sightings were going down, this would show they are still alive.

  2. I can’t really make out too much. It does seem very light though, which looks strange to me. I wouldn’t get my hopes up but dear ol’ Steve Feltham forever seems to have the beacon of hope doesn’t he? You have to take your hat off to him. 20 years or so he’s been living in that caravan on the Loch shore and he’s still full of spirit by the sounds of it.

  3. Intriguing photo, although would be nice to see a larger image instead of one so small that unable to make out any details. Not going to be holding my breath over this one. Is way too white to be the Nessie, seeing as how nearly every other photo of Nessie shows a rather darker skin complexion.

  4. I’ve never seen Loch Ness look that blue in my life. The water’s full of peat, it’s notoriously dark. Something’s amiss with that picture, I don’t know whether it’s just been lightened or enhanced for clarity, but it doesn’t look right. Are we meant to be looking at the body of the monster, or wake kicked up by a body we can’t see? The latter would make more sense with the colour, but it doesn’t look right either way, it looks pasted on. Have we got any of the other pictures he took for comparison?

  5. It’s nothing more than a reflection in the water of the white buildings with the dark roofs on the shore. The image in/on the water is white with a dark topline. Pretty obvious. Even the witness says it was a reflection in his statement.

  6. I still think it looks weird; however, I’m not sure it can be attributed to reflections. If it is the reflection of the white house above, then it should be lower in the image; also, there should be accompanying reflections from the other white building to the right.

    Plus, those white elements are being reflected by the water, too (look carefully) a reflection of a reflection? things are getting “trippier” at Scotland by the minute ;)

  7. I think it may just be some rocks in the water because if the LNM just came from below the surface and rose up, there would be ripples in the water, but there isn’t. Some think its a reflection of the white houses but like what “red pill junkie” explained in the last comment it can’t be that.

    Also, the “monster” is way too close to shore, usually big animals would need to stay in open water. Boulders, though, stay visible if they’re by shore because if they were further out then you couldn’t be able to see them.

    I’m kind of a skeptic on the Loch Ness Monster.

  8. Scaryeyes,

    The Loch can look very blue on sunny days. I have taken my own pics of the loch in sunshine and the water came out looking a lovely blue in the pics.

    Just saying.

  9. If it doesn’t look like Nessie, then it ain’t Nessie. It could be another unknown sea creature. Remember “unknown” therefore, it may be a new animal not seen before. It probably made it’s first public appearance right there. ;) Honestly, if it was Nessie, it might be a variety of Nessie somehow. Other then that, I think regardless of what it may be, I think this may be a pic that we should hold on to temporary. At least until someone has real proof it’s fake. I won’t take those scientist or experts saying it’s fake if they don’t have legit proof. Other than that, I seen other possible Nessie pics and if the pics I seen were real, then Nessie truly has been caught on camera after all.

  10. Wait.. if it was a reflection of the houses, wouldn’t the colors be reversed??? The black ‘roof’ would have to be on the bottom in the water image since it would have to look like upside down versions of the houses, not rightside up. Also… if there were reflections in the water, you wouldn’t just see a small chunk of houses without some of the surrounding scenery. There is no brown reflection for the cliff, or any tree reflection. All that is there is the white ‘humps’. Also, the white humps have their own reflection which makes me assume they are stand-alone objects in the water. Nothing from the cliff is reflecting. The only thing that has a reflection are the lumps- which are *something* in the water.

    Depending on the camera and the time of day, the ‘bright white’ color may just be the sun reflection being picked up as glaring white.
    I do photography as a hobby, and it’s always irritating when people judge cryptid phots by their clarity.

    Getting my dog’s to pose in a specific spot often results in blurs and glare. Even professional photographers are lucky enough to get 1 good photo out of hundreds… so why on earth does everyone expect that some random person whipping out a cheap camera/cell phone/etc. to get a quick pic of something moving in the distance is going to get a clear shot??? It’s sometimes hard enough to get a clear shot of something sitting still in good lighting!

    Yes, this pic is awful, as are most cryptid photos. Unfortunately, not many people who take them are expecting them…

    It could just be rocks or turtle shells. If it was rocks, I assume they’d be stationery and the photographer would have seen them in the same spot the whole time. Can’t someone just take another picture of that same scene? See if those same humps are there?

    The thing with cryptids also is… the reason we don’t see them is probably because they avoid humans… if cryptids exist, they are most likely going to come out when it doesn’t think people are around.

    People going in it’s territory with photography equipment, and loud boats (even a quiet rowboat or canoe is going to make noise to an aquatic animal) they are probably not going to see it.

    Unfortunately, cryptids come out when no one is around, and if someone does get to see them they are going to be far enough away that the animal doesn’t realize they are there… which results in far away, quick, blurry photos.

    Setting up equipment and making noise in the waters and woodlands is going to repel these elusive creatures. That’s probably why we have no ‘good quality’ pictures of cryptids.

  11. As I read the newer comments, I come to a conclusion that I know it’s not rocks for sure. I’m pretty sure that the photographer would of known it was rocks. Yet alone other people who saw this pic would of had legit proof it was rocks. Another thing to me is that if this was a fake pic, then it was photoshopped. I do understand somebody could of hoaxed it though. But I’m leaning on more of a photoshop then hoax. Other then that I think this is Nessie.

  12. The two smaller patches on the left and single larger patch on the right match up with the fenestration of the house above the water, which can be seen clearly in Google Streetview.

    The white patches are most likely separate reflections of the sun in the three windows, bouncing off the water surface. The alignment only lasts for a few minutes.

    The pictures are 1296×968 and were taken on an iPhone4.

  13. Just picking up some comments made so far. Don’t think it’s a problem that the object seems close to shore. At Loch Ness you may have some shallow water out to 20 feet or so, but after that it gets very deep very rapidly. Also if it is rocks, then the rocks would still be there. You can check this exact spot on Google Maps/Earth.

    On Google, there’s no sign of any rocks.

    Don’t know what it is, but I don’t think it’s rocks or reflections.

  14. korollocke said:

    “It’s nothing more than a reflection in the water of the white buildings with the dark roofs on the shore. The image in/on the water is white with a dark topline. Pretty obvious. Even the witness says it was a reflection in his statement.”

    You don’t need to look that close to recognise that the “things” actually seem to cast their OWN reflection in the water.

  15. This is frustrating.
    There is something clearly in the water. Rocks? Man made object? Animal? Who knows?
    But it certainly is not something on shore reflecting onto the water.
    Photography is not easy.
    I have a fuji s5600 bridge camera. Taken alot of beautiful photos with it. You will be surprised however, at how hard it is to take photos of wildlife with it. Wildlife in the wild at a distance, using the environment to hide from you.
    From my experience, only with professional DSLR cameras can you reliably take clear photos of wildlife at a split seconds notice. But these are extremely bulky and expensive equipment to carry around. Majority of people cant carry them around.
    Bridge cameras, compact cameras, phone cameras etc are hit or miss.
    So it is always a lottery
    I am telling you from experience.
    With cryptozoology the problem is complicated further.
    Get a blurry photo or video and people say you deliberately present a blurred photo so people cant see the hoax or misidentified animal. I.e You are accused of trying to con the world.
    Get a crystal sharp photo/video and you are accused of using computer graphic software to create a hoax.

  16. The elephant’s foot umbrella stand in the room is that there’s no evidence of water disturbance whatsoever. At that angle of capture, perspective, and that degree of detail…regardless of the marshmallow appearance…those humps are over eight feet above the surface (higher than any Nessie purported humps of which I’m aware). Where’s the wake that even the most graceful of undulating creatures of that size couldn’t help but create. Even if the object in question were animate and merely struggling to remain stationary (a highly implausible scenario), it being that big, there would still be ripples emanating from it.

  17. If it was a reflection, why would it disappear…it would be just a wavering image upon the water and probably not going away. As for the rock theory–the same…rocks don’t tend to move.

    As for what it IS, didn’t the guy say he took other pictures? Yes, he said he took “various shots” of it. So where are the other pics and what can we tell from the whole? As to the picture–the dark lines atop the white could be the back of a creature…the white underneath could be partially exposed underside with froth…or it could be a wash of waves–bodies of water like Loch Ness can (personally I do not believe for a second that this accounts for all of the wakes in Loch NEss) cause a back wash of waves colliding, creating things looking like that.

    What can help decide is what other pictures the guy got and what his other information is. He said he saw “four hump-like features” and that it “stayed there as long as it did.” What we need to know is what he observed those humps doing while it was there…moving, stock still, shifting, what? And how long are we talking? If he took several shots, at least it was visible a few seconds, so he should have more information about whether it was stationary in the water or moving left or right, or toward the camera or away from it.

    Loch Ness does go deep after a few feet out into the loch, so it’s not inconceivable that a creature could surface near the shore.

    It’s a good photo…I’m just not sure it’s Nessie–not ruling it out, but there’s a lot of other questions that need answering before we can throw it into the realm of my favorite cryptid.

    That’s another problem with Ness–it’s long and narrow, but standing on one shore, you can easily have a mile across the loch, and if you see something either out in the middle or near the opposite shore, it can be a devilishly hard time getting the “money shot.”

    Still, I haven’t given up on Nessie yet:) Let’s see what other details we can squeeze out of this picture, others and the photographer…oh, and don’t rule out a hoax yet either…

  18. Looks to me that with the quality of this picture, you can’t tell if it has wakes or ripples. As in, there might be some waves or ripples on this photo. Just that it’s hard to tell from it’s quality. I look at the water and the quality looks weird (a bit messed up). Also it could be floating therefore no wake/ripples at the time of the photo shoot. I’m saying that there might be ripples/wakes but when the photographer shot the picture, he shot it when the “thing” wasn’t moving. Therefore no ripple/wake. It probably moved after the photo shot.

  19. just going to say the obvious… there is an albino gene in every species, not to say this is real or hoaxed, just saying, the white color means nothing.

  20. I believe korollocke pegged this one. I also think it is a reflection of the buildings on the shore line.

  21. I’m a little skeptical of the reflection-of-the-buildings-onshore hypothesis. The bank of trees abutting the shore look way too tall to allow the image of the building(s) to reflect on the water surface, especially that close to shore (and note that there’s no reflection of the trees themselves). Granted, the building’s on a small slpoe, but that slope doesn’t look tall enough to alow the image to project onto the water.
    It’s also a little unclear as to why, if it is a reflection of the building, the three-humps in the water to not reflect a configuation of the single structure onshore.
    Nessie? Maybe not. But I’m not sold on the reflection idea.

  22. It’s not a reflection. The order of the colors on the water do not look right to be a reflection of the house. Also, it is highly unlikely that only the house would be reflected in the water and none of the surrounding vegetation.

    Search Google images for houses reflected in water and you will see what I mean.

    It’s not a reflection….next.

  23. Medgerto wrote “The order of the colors on the water do not look right to be a reflection of the house.”

    The white patches are most likely separate reflections of the sun in the three windows, bouncing off the water surface, not reflections of the house.

    The sun moves across the sky at 1° every 4 minutes but is only ½° in diameter, so any alignment of observer, two mirrors and sun will only last for 2 minutes between the sun’s right limb entering alignment and the left limb leaving it.

    In the present case the second mirror – the loch surface – is rippled so the actual time of alignment could be extended slightly both before and after the real alignment.

    The 5 photographs were all taken within a period of 2 minutes.