Steve Feltham has the hump from the latest Nessie photo

Click here for and update – 03/10/12

I wrote previously that skeptics were being too quick to label the latest Nessie photo as a hoax without any supporting evidence, and how this was illogical behaviour. Yesterday a comment was left on my post by Steve Feltham about the photo and how he’d discovered that it was not a genuine photo containing something unidentifiable, or something naturally occuring that had been misidentified. Steve said:

That was my first impressions of Georges photograph [quoted in this blog post], pubished exclusively by the Inverness courier. I have since then spent a lot of time getting to the bottom of what actually went on here…. i can quiet catagorically, with no fear of him ever daring to sue me, that George Edwards has deliberately punted a photo that he know to be of a fibreglass prop from a documentary as a real picture of something unexplained… no question. I now have this hump, i also have film of it being used in the water, and i also have film of it on the DECK OF HIS BOAT!

I sat in shock for a moment or two before processing what I had just read before rushing onto the Facebook page as instructed where I found a timeline of Steve’s discovery written out before me. I personally know what it is like to believe something is genuine only for doubt to start creeping in when you think about the subject a bit more. Steve posted several photos on his Facebook wall on August 19th showing a Fibreglass hump that had been used in a Documentary by National Geographic for Channel 5 called ‘Truth behind the Loch Ness monster”.

Well that is the George Edwards nessie photograph solved. Turns out he used a fibreglass hump which was being filmed for inclusion in the National Geographic documentary, “the truth behind the loch ness monster” . If you have a copy of this documentary then the first five minutes should be enough to show you what he did, and the final nail in his story is the shot 5.47minutes in that shows the fake hump on the front of his boat! – Steve Feltham [source]

Click on the above photos and stills from the documentary for larger versions.

Steve went to the media with this discovery of his to show how he felt the photo by Edwards had been faked using this prop. He also contacted the producers of the show to ask what had happened to the prop used during filming. He states

Today I emailed the production company that made the “truth behind the loch ness monster” asking for information about the events surrounding the borrowing of the hump, and their use of it, pointing out that i was interested because i believe george edwards took the opportunity to snap a photo of the hump in the water whilst they filmed it from his boat for their doc. The response started with this line…..

” Hi Steve,
I saw that photo on the net and knew instantly that’s what it was.”

Steve also commented about how roughly two weeks ago he paid George Edwards a visit to enquire about whether any other photos of the oddity in the water had been taken. He waited for George’s boat to return to Temple Pier from a cruise out on the Loch. Steve reports that he waited for the next lot of tourists to load onto the boat before engaging George in conversation and reports that their conversation went something like this:

Steve: Alright George?
George: aye steve, how you doing?”
Steve: aye, fine… I was just wondering, because a few people seem to be asking a few questions, is there any more photographs?
George: aye, there is, *untying ropes* there’s maybe ten or eleven in total, but I gave them all to Peter jolly [a  freelance Inverness photographer for Northpix] he’s got them all now.
Steve: oh, I was just wondering because-
George: people can think what they like, Steve. I am too long in the tooth to care about that. I know what I saw
Steve explains on his FB wall that it was at this point that he became suspicious because he, Steve, had gone on record at that point explaining to the world that he thought the photo was genuine. Apparently a few days later Steve spoke to Peter jolly of Northpix who told him that George had indeed stated he would email across the photos to him, but that hasn’t done so yet. You can watch Steve explaining all of this to the media in the video here and from 22minutes 50 seconds here (UK readers only).
This is certainly an intriguing twist to the story and makes for compelling reading and thinking. The hump does indeed look extremely like the oddity photographed by George Edwards, and if George did indeed take more photographs that he hasn’t yet released then it becomes a bit more suspicious. Especially coupled with the fact that postcards of the photo had been on sale for some time before the photo was released to the media. I hope George makes a comment and answers these accusation, but my gut is telling me he isn’t going to do that, which is a shame.
I think the evidence that Steve has provided while suggesting the photo is a hoax is strong, but I still have slight reservations about putting my money exclusively onto that as an explanation. I have a feeling more will be revealed over the coming days and weeks about this that might convince me further, and I should point out that I have no reason to believe that Steve is being malicious or untruthful in his accusations of a hoax. I’ll finish this post off with a quote from Steve Feltham.
For 21 years now I have watched and waited on the shores of Loch Ness for a glimpse of one of these animals. Never have I entertained the thought of creating a hoax sighting. Whilst not yet having a good sighting myself, I have acted as a filter, letting down gently the people who show me their photos and videos if I can explain it as an image of a mundane object or event on the surface of the Loch, and thus keeping bad evidence out of the public domain.
If however I cannot explain somebodies piece of evidence then I do push it into the public arena for others to study and analyze, such as Marcus Atkinsons excellent sonar contact last year. I wish that George Edwards photograph had been the real mackoy, as I first believed it to be when asked to comment on it for the Inverness Courier, before they exclusively released it a couple of weeks ago.
Unfortunately, (especially for George), deeper investigation and conversations with people working here at the loch who i trust have proven beyond any possible doubt that this picture is a deliberate hoax. I could of (sic) kept quiet, as many people have said, all Nessie stories are good for tourism, but I am not here to keep the likes of George in business, I am here to shed light on this wonderful world class mystery, and I am proud to say that. Now unfortunately the truth behind this hoax must get out there into the public arena, to hopefully undo the damage that a cynical man has done.
Update: The opening scene from the Nessie documentary was gone through frame by frame, and what you see below is is the original Edwards photo with the frame by frame shots of the prop that Steve Feltham has sitting on top. You’ll notice the two humps look very similar in the water (though the prop on the right is slightly blurred because of the frame by frame capture process)

13 thoughts on “Steve Feltham has the hump from the latest Nessie photo

  1. Skeptics should not be quick to dismiss photos of Nessie as fake. They should however be instantaneous in dismissing them as photos of monsters. There has been so much study done of the Loch, that the chances of monsters existing there is so small you really can say “nil”. I have more chance of winning the lottery next week and I don’t buy tickets for it. Even a family of invisible plesiosaurs (as in one crappy film) could not exist there undetected, due to insufficient food stocks to support a monstrous gene pool. It is interesting that monsters are often believed to exist in the singular (“The Loch Ness Monster”) thus increasing the chances of their undetected existence.
    Photos showing unexplained objects are taken every second. So many photos of lock ness are taken, if people weren’t taken ones with an unexplained aspect constantly that would be very strange indeed. People are gullible fools predisposed to seeing monsters in the dark; the more foolish among them take it further.

  2. I can’t help but wonder how many other famous photographs of the Loch Ness monster were faked. I know the so called surgeon’s photograph was but that’s it. At least for now, that this.

  3. Hayley I salute your objectivity.

    To me Edwards’ pic and Feltham’s hump [pun intended] are similar because one seems modelled on the other but they’re not the same.

    They sit differently in the water at different elevations. They’re a different length and Edwards’ ‘hump’ terminates in a right angle at the long low end with a possible submerged head whereas Feltham’s does so at the high short end.

    Also Edwards hump’s clearly manoeuvering in the water wheras Feltham’s hump looks like it’s simply sitting in the shallows lest it sink.

    I’m also deeply suspicious of Feltham’s claims he originally believed Edwards because his conduct’s more consistent with a Iago type figure trying to catch him out viz the conversation after all that longwinded unnecessary detail about how long he had to wait to get him on his own implying Edwards was evading him culminating in “Oh I was just wondering because-” and Edwards’ weary resigned knowing “people can think what they like, Steve. I am too long in the tooth to care about that. I know what I saw”.

    Is that really a conversation between a beleaguered man and someone who really believes in him?

    Plus when Feltham rushed off to Jolly and found out the hypothetical photos hadn’t arrived did he even give Edwards a chance to explain why that might be or did he just go straight into the exposé?

    1. Hello,

      I’ve actually got a photo of the hump Feltham has, sitting in the deep water. It is below (and I’m going to put it in the post now, I don’t know why I didn’t already). It does look very similar.

    2. @alanborky, if you have not seen it already I recommend this web page
      which tells you all you need to know about the matter.
      As for Mr Edwards “sending” pictures to Mr Jolly, in this digital age he would only have emailed copies so he should still have all the original files on his pc or even in the camera.

      The bottom line is that the whole thing was just a publicity stunt and the guy is a charlatan. Listen to him spouting his tourist guff on the audio file! I.E.

  4. I advise everyone to visit the page Isaac Eckerslyke recommends. The animated overlay at the bottom proves the point with no room for counter argument. An excellent piece of work.

    Succinct and without any doubt this proves Mr Edwards is resorting to sophistry and deceit and his photo(s)are fake.

  5. I don’t really think that this photo’ shows the fibreglass hump – it appears to be a different shape. If you take a cross-section the fibreglass one is quite rounded, whereas the one in the new photo’ seems to angle in towards a narrow ridge along the top.

    On the other hand that doesn’t mean it’s genuine. I’m suspicious of the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any shadow under the water, indicating that the hump is part of a larger object. It might be that that’s just because the light is reflecting off the water, but it looks suspiciously depthless.

    1. I put the difference in shape down to the different angle to the camera. The prop is side on and moving sideways, and alleged monster is moving towards the boat.

    2. I totally agree with Hayley about the angle.

      In my opinion, Dick Raynor’s overlay and the part of the boat in the corner of the photo show the object to be very close to the boat and not “about half a mile” away.

      Claire, you’re right about the light precluding any under water visibility. Very convenient but what about the actual weather on the supposed date the photo was taken? Dick Raynor posted further incriminating evidence on 01/09/2012.

      Unlike Claire, I really do believe that this photo shows the fibreglass hump. I think that Dick Raynor has produced a watertight prosecution and as far as Mr Edwards is concerned how can it not be ‘Case Closed – Guilty as Charged’?

      If George Edwards wishes to appeal then he would have to produce some very convincing evidence including ALL the other photos he supposedly took on the disputed date: uncropped and unedited. Mr Edwards seems very reluctant do this – could it be for pecuniary reasons?

  6. I was the team leader on “The Truth Behind The Loch Ness Monster.”

    I concur, upon examination of the George Edwards photo, it matches to the prop used in the documentary.

    Truthfully, I haven’t followed much of the mystery, but had just seen the photo this evening, and am also calling shenanigans.

    I am very saddened and disappointed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *