These are for the benefit of readers who might otherwise be misled by the remarks made by
Jan Ove-Sundberg, Leader of the Global Underwater Search Team - "GUST".
original may be viewed at http://www.bahnhof.se/~wizard/cryptoworld/index83a.html
This shows that GUST are right and that you never again can trust Dick Raynor
THE ULTIMATE PROOF
Copyright 2002 by Jan Sundberg and the National Meteorological Library and Archive
Can anyone in their right mind,
believe that James Gray, Roy Johnston and the entire picture staff at the
Scottish based edition of the newspaper Daily Mail got together in a conspiracy,
invented the stories and faked the pictures from May 2001 and August 2002,
which allegedly shows the Loch Ness Monster? Of course not! Debunker Dick
Raynor stands alone when he believe this, but GUST now has the ultimate
proof (see above) that shows why you NEVER can trust this debunker again.
GUST seems to be unaware that
a debunker is one who strips away falsehood and nonsense from a story,
and I am happy to counter, or "debunk" his erroneous statements.
I have already pointed out the inconsistencies in the "Story", and that
the events could not have taken place when and where the "Story" placed
them. I stand by what I have written.
Dick Raynor claimed at an early
stage that we should not believe in the Roy Johnston´s pictures because
they were not taken on August 21st as it was flat calm on the loch that
day, while Johnstons pictures showed a Force 2 or 3 wave scene.
I published the results of a
fairly comprehensive study of the images which started long before the
story came before the public.
GUST emailed both the BBC and the CNN weather sites for Scotland, but neither of them could confirm Raynor´s claim.
Now, Dick Raynor comments this by saying on his own home page:
This is meaningless... Just because some distant third party cannot confirm something it does not follow that the opposite is true! Regular readers of the Inverness Courier recall that the 23rd August issue carried a picture of me on the front page - and that picture was taken by their photographer on 21st August! It looks calm to me...
GUST leader Mr. Sundberg once again displays his comprehensive and compendious ignorance. A wind of force 2 has a speed of 4 to 6 knots, and is termed a "light breeze". A wind of force 3 has a speed of 7 to 10 knots and is termed a "gentle breeze". (Source - Reed´s Nautical Almanac). On Loch Ness, a southwesterly force 2 to 3 force with a fetch of about 4 km will produce small wavelets like the ones in the "Johnston pictures".
Unlike Dick Raynor, GUST believe in checking everything in minute detail and we made no exception in the Roy Johnston Case, so we also emailed Steve Jebson, Information Officer and Visual Aids Manager at the National Meteorological Library and Archive in London, who put down quite an amount of work to track down what the weather had been like on Loch Ness on August the 21st 2002.
On September the 23rd, Mr. Jebson said in an email:
Dear Jan,
Many thanks for your request for information about the weather conditions for the 21st August 2002 in the Loch Ness area of Scotland. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet of bi-hourly observations from the Foyers station situated approximately half way down Loch Ness. This spreadsheet contains information about clouds amounts, temperature, present weather, visibility and wind. If I can be of any further assistance, or should you need any clarification about the contents of the spreadsheet, please do not hesitate to contact me.
The spreadsheet shows that between
9 and 10 in the morning, when Roy Johnston took his pictures of Nessie,
it was partly cloudy and a wind force between 3 and 4, which means over
10 knots and more than "a gentle breeze" which is also evident in the only
picture by Roy Johnston that has been published so far (Apart
from the Daily Mail on 7/9/2002, The News of the World on 8/9/2002, and
here).
The spreadsheet proves that
Dick Raynor is a liar, not Roy Johnston!
Thank you for your kind comments. GUST would be well advised to follow the English saying "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" I have placed red circles around two items on the most informative spreadsheet. The first, at the top, clearly indicates that the wind speeds listed are in knots - (k-n-o-t-s) - nautical miles per hour - and are not references to the Beaufort Wind Scale. Here is part of that system of describing wind conditions ...
Extract from the Beaufort Wind Scale
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is evident from the spreadsheet
and the Beaufort Wind Scale chart above that the wind (at Foyers) on 21st
August 2002 at 0800 - 1000 was recorded as being 3 to 4 knots, which is
on the borderline between Beaufort Force One and Two. The "Johnston Pictures"
clearly show breaking waves which only occur with winds of Force Three
and over. GUST is still confused about wind speeds and the Beaufort Scale,
but no-one else need be.
Other arguments Dick Raynor has
can also easily be met by GUST, and are as follows:
DIck Raynor: GUST IS MISSING THE POINT, AGAIN. THE PICTURES AT THE START OF THE ROLL WERE TAKEN BEFORE EARLY JULY OF THIS YEAR, 2002, IN THE AFTERNOON OF A WINDY DAY.
ROY JOHNSTON HAS NEVER SAID HE VISITED THE LOCH EARLIER IN THE YEAR!
GUST replies: This
is like saying that Roy Johnston had an obligation to report all his movements
at Loch Ness to Dick Raynor!
But he could have provided an
explanation, and he didn't !
THE "STORY" SAYS HE TOOK THEM IN AUGUST AND THIS IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE - THE SCENE HAD CHANGED IN EARLY JULY!
GUST replies: Since
Dick doesn´t show us any proof of this, you shouldn´t believe
him.
If
GUST put one tenth of the effort that it employs in peddling unlikely stories
into seeking the truth, it would have contacted the authorities responsible
for re-turfing the edges of the footpaths at Urquhart Castle, who would
have informed them that this work was completed by early July 2002. The
photographs on the "Johnston Film" immediately preceding the "monster"
pictures were taken BEFORE this work was done.
THE "STORY" ALSO SAYS HE HAD THE CAMERA "ROUND HIS NECK" - HARDLY THE ACTION OF SOMEONE WHO LEAVES THE CAMERA UNUSED FOR MONTH AFTER MONTH!
GUST replies: Being
a photographer himself, it would be very interesting to know where Dick
keep his camera when he takes his pictures. But maybe he isn´t a
photographer at all because none of the media that covered Operation Cleansweep
had ever heard of him!
No comment!
IS GUST SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT JOHNSTON TOOK A FEW PICTURES OF THE CASTLE ON A VISIT IN EARLY SUMMER, THEN DROVE ALL THE WAY HOME, SPENT A COUPLE OF MONTHS THERE, THEN DROVE UP TO SCOTLAND AGAIN, AND ONLY BOTHERED TO TAKE ANOTHER PICTURE WHEN HE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME FOR THE SECOND TIME...? HMMMMM!
GUST replies: Anything
is possible when you´re an amateur photographer. After 30 years as
a freelance journalist, active in both Scandinavia, most countries in Europe
and large parts of the rest of the world, I have seen what amateur photographers
can and will do and nothing surprises me anymore. Dick Raynor on the other
hand has spent most of his life on the Black Isle, brooding over such important
things as coming up with now concepts on how to debunk Nessie.
No Comment!
DIck Raynor: GUST IS OBVIOUSLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY. THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN FROM GRID REFERENCE NH 40377 12200 - GIVE OR TAKE A FEW METERS. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 2.6 KM FROM THE "INCHNACARDOCH" OR CHERRY ISLAND LAY-BY WITH THE VIEW HE IS REFERRING TO. THIS IS THE LAY-BY ABOVE THE CAMERA LOCATION - LIKE I SAID - "NO VIEW".
GUST replies: What
is significant for a hoaxer? Right, he will make it next to impossible
for you to reveal he has faked something. So IF Roy Johnston had faked
his pictures, why than would he choose a spot that are impossible to get
any pictures from in the first place? No, that´s not very logical
and from what we have seen so far everything else seems logical and true,
so I think Dick Raynor is either mistaken about the exact spot or misleading
us - again!
Anyone can corroborate my given
position for the Johnston Pictures by taking a map and the picture from
the GUST website and going to the location. They will see how the background
matches that in the "Johnston" monster pictures from that location only.
This is called "field work".
DIck Raynor: I HAVE HEARD NO CLAIM THAT THIS IS A SEQUENCE OF PICTURES TAKEN IN A FEW BRIEF SECONDS. ROY JOHNSTON SAID HE WATCHED THE OBJECT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES. AND WHY ONLY FIVE MONSTER PICTURES IN ALL THIS TIME...? HMMMM!
GUST replies: Again, this is
a typical amateur behavior. While a professional are taught to focus on
the motive and photograph it as long as he can, the amateur wants a peek
or two at the motive and so he wont take as many pictures. Everyone knows
that your vision is restricted when you look at a motive through the viewfinder
of a camera and especially an amateur would want to notice as many details
as possible, with his eyes, before he records what he sees.
And yet this "amateur" managed
to hold his camera perfectly still for nearly half a minute while
shooting an 8 picture sequence of a monster only 45 yards away? Hmmmm!
EVIDENCE
FOR "MONSTERS" EITHER STANDS UP TO SCRUTINY OR IT DOESN'T. IN THIS CASE,
THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THIS SECOND SET OF SIMILAR PICTURES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE SAME PERSON IN THE SAME AREA IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS THROWS SERIOUS
DOUBTS ON THE PROVENANCE OF BOTH SETS OF PICTURES, RATHER THAN REINFORCING
IT.
GUST replies: Dick
Raynor is referring to GUST checking on the weather, on August 21th. Although
this may seem to be just a petty detail it´s often the small details
that are the most important to check and since Dick said that Johnston
can´t be trusted if he lied about the weather, which he didn´t,
we now say that Dick can´t be trusted because we have proved that
he lied about the weather.
This is plainly unsupported
by GUST's own evidence. Also see the photo of me taken on 21st August on
the shore of Loch Ness elsewhere on this site.
DIck Raynor: THEY CERTAINLY LOOK SIMILAR, AND THE LATTER ARE FAKES!
GUST replies: Dick
refers to Roy Johnstons pictures but his firm belief that Roy Johnston,
James Gray and the pictorial staff of the Daily Mail are all part of a
conspiracy to present forged pictures of Nessie, could only come from a
man who at the same time believes in the ABC phenomenon.
The Global Underwater Search
Team seems remarkably concerned and familiar with my "beliefs", despite
my statement that I don't have any ! However, the "firm belief" attributed
to me in the above paragraph is something that most sensible people would
not have a problem with.
Through Fortean Times (FT) I´m
sure you have learned that the alleged pumas, lions, etc. that roams Britain
are called ABC: Alien Big Cats. FT have written them off as paranormal
apparitions but Dick Raynor is still chasing them as if they were physical...
GUST is again showing it's naivety
and is plainly unable to distinguish between fact, fiction, and the normal
commercial practices of newspapers! A puma was caught not far from Loch
Ness some years ago, and is now a favourite exhibit at the Inverness Museum.
More recently, another was nearly run over by a police car near Drumnadrochit.
I DO NOT NEED TO QUOTE "SOURCES"
GUST replies: Yes,
you do, Mr. Dick Raynor. You need to quote sources if you want anyone but
your friend (name removed) to believe in your so called research!
No comment!
WHEN I TELL YOU THAT THE CASTLE LANDSCAPE CHANGED WHEN IT DID,
GUST replies: Prove it by showing us this in pictures! It shouldn´t be too hard since you claim you´re a professional photographer.
OR THAT THE PICTURES OF THE "MONSTER" WERE TAKEN WHERE I SAY THEY WERE,
GUST replies: You
have lied to us before and will probably lie to us again, as long as it
promotes your belief that there is no Nessie.
These are the words of Jan Sundberg,
the leader of the "Global Underwater Search Team" or GUST for short. Readers,
especially film producers and potential sponsors, will decide for themselves
who can be believed, and who cannot.
OR THAT A CERTAIN LAY-BY DOES NOT HAVE A VIEW OF THE LOCH.
GUST replies: Pictures,
Dick, pictures are better than words, every true photographer knows this
and does not have to nag about it.
My comments about the view from
the lay-by were supported by a photograph and GPS fix. Anyone can verify
it for themselves by "field work".
PEOPLE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA KNOW THESE THINGS,
GUST replies: Even
though you like to believe that, most people in the world are not familiar
with the Loch Ness area and it´s those people you need to convince.
No-one except GUST seems to
doubt my word...
AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT CONTINUE, LIKE GUST, TO MAKE PUBLIC FOOLS OF THEMSELVES.
GUST replies: GUST has been on expeditions to Loch Ness three times and I personally have been to Loch Ness five times, (and I have lived here for thirty years...) so this statement of yours are as untrue as many others statements are. By saying what you say here, Mr. Dick Raynor, you´re doing Scotland a gross disfavor, because all those who have not been to Loch Ness are not the fools you say they are and if they take your words at face value, they will never set their foot up there at all!
I stand by what I wrote "I DO NOT NEED TO QUOTE "SOURCES" WHEN I TELL YOU THAT THE CASTLE LANDSCAPE CHANGED WHEN IT DID, OR THAT THE PICTURES OF THE "MONSTER" WERE TAKEN WHERE I SAY THEY WERE, OR THAT A CERTAIN LAY-BY DOES NOT HAVE A VIEW OF THE LOCH.
PEOPLE
WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA KNOW THESE THINGS, AND THOSE WHO ARE
NOT CONTINUE, LIKE GUST, TO MAKE PUBLIC FOOLS OF THEMSELVES."
...if
they choose to ignore the inconvenient facts in the case.
The "Johnston" Pictures are on a roll of film which starts with a few pictures of Urquhart Castle which were taken no later than early July 2002. They are immediately followed by the "monster" pictures, said to have been taken on August 21st.
The pictures of the object in the water were taken from the shore at a location - NH 40377 12200 - which is inconsistent with his statement that he stopped in a lay-by to enjoy the view. The lay-by at that location is masked from the loch by trees. As he was only here for a short visit, how did the pictures of the castle, exposed at least six weeks earlier, get to be on his roll of film?
Until these inconsistencies are explained, the pictures must be treated with suspicion.
One newspaper was offered these pictures for £35,000 (US$ 55,000) and Mr Johnston's agent, Mr. Gray, is believed to have made more than that from his remarkably similar 2001 pictures. Both men deny photographing "Nessie", despite having sold motor-drive sequences of 8 (Johnston) and 5 (Gray) photographs of a cylindrical object about 42 metres (Johnston) or 30 - 37 metres (Gray) away . The object was about 1.1 metres (Johnston) or 1.5 - 1.9 metres long (Gray). Both sets were taken near Invermoriston, and in consecutive years. What a coincidence! But if they were both sure it wasn't "Nessie", what do they think it was? These are among the closest, luckiest and coolest ( and most highly remunerated) observers ever, and yet they seem to have disappeared from view. Where are the TV interviews, the newspaper follow-ups , the documentaries?
Your
opinions are invited.