I got a heads up that the latest issue of Fortean Times was publishing a new story on a Loch Ness Monster photograph. It was taken by Jonathan Bright who was on a mystery tour of Britain back in November 2011. If you want the full story, get the latest issue of Fortean Times (number 308).
What do readers make of it? Is it a ridged back or a head-neck with a mane like appearance in true Water Horse fashion? On the other hand, sceptics may think it is just a wave, debris or a hoax. I will put up my analysis in due course.
All I will say just now is that if it is a picture of the Loch Ness Monster, it is one of the best (and the first taken in infra-red).
All I will say just now is that if it is a picture of the Loch Ness Monster, it is one of the best (and the first taken in infra-red).
After careful pondering, the serrated back of a sturgeon comes to mind. Is that what it could be? Why can't we ever get a clear head and neck pic, always the humps!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure a sturgeon can bend its body like that, although I know what you mean about the serration. But a sturgeon flexes from side to side rather than up and down, and if that much of the back was out of the water you'd be able to see the nose and tail, in my opinion.
Delete"always the humps!"
DeleteAn' clearly it's givin' you the hump!
Like water off a Nessie's back, er…hump :-)
DeleteBehold the Logosaurus!
ReplyDeleteThere's many mundane things it could be, but a log wasn't the first thing that sprang to my mind. What makes you say log?
DeleteI think Erik would have been more creative going for a tractor-tyre-osaurus! (not that I think this is a large tyre).
DeleteWell, it DOES have bilateral symmetry..... ;)
DeleteIt's a fascinating picture. I see a face, with the monster facing towards us. I can see two ways of interpreting the face. The first is with the eyes in shadow immediately below the "horns" and set back behind the protuding middle section of the face. The second is seeing two eyes in the middle of the head about half way down. Intriguing!
ReplyDeleteI had to go looking for why it took so long for the pic to surface. A quick google check brought this up from an Fb page....
ReplyDeleteJonathan Bright Nessie's real. I can't be certain whether she's an elusive creature with a physical body, or a paranormal manifestation of some sort, but I do have a photo that I think it shows that she's more than an imaginery being...The photo has been captured during my cruise of Loch Ness a couple of years ago, while shooting different angles of the lake with my infrared camera -the windy water didn't help much so I hadn't really noticed anything weird at the time -in fact I had to wait another year after carefully re-examining the photo to finally notice the detail of a large head standing barely out of the water among the waves at some distance... I would love to share the photo here, but unfortunately I can't as long as it remains unpublished (-I have agreed with a certain magazine and expect to have the photo and a relevant article published in the following months...). What I can tell you though is that the head looks pretty much like it has been described (certainly not a sturgeon fish, or a shark, as it has been suggested by some parties in the last years), and it even includes what looks like a pair of small horns on its top...
Can't wait for you to do an analysis GB
Yes, I have Jonathan's story but will let Fortean Times have first call. Paranormal? Oh dear, that will put Jonathan beyond the pale for a few here! :)
DeleteHere we go falling into the trap of "seeing" what we want or think we want to see, myself included. I hate to say this, being a Nessie proponent. A Zoologist would probably say it’s a fish of some kind. A skeptic would say it’s a log or a standing wave. File it under inconclusive evidence. It will probably stand as such for some time to come. I too eagerly await GBs interpretation.
ReplyDeleteSomeone mentioned the side to side motion of a sturgeon. If you look at the middle picture is that not the tip of a tail on the left making a small splash? that would indicate a sturgeon surfacing and swimming with it's tail bent to the left of the body.
ReplyDeleteWell having never seen this before i found it very interesting but have come to the conclusion (for myself) that its just a wave caught at a split-second that could really be, as mentioned by others here, any number of things that our minds interprets it to be. Just 'simulacra' & in some ways very similar to the rines 'gargoyle head' picture of 75.
ReplyDeleteI can see something that looks like the head of a dog low in the water and a bird with a white head and dark wings swooping on it.
DeleteFile it under "Over-ambitious Osprey".
*AnonStg*
It looks like the photo was taken from the stern of the boat and is probably just disturbance in the water from the propeller wash which is manifesting itself into a small peaked wave. I have seen something similar to this on a couple of my boat trips on the Loch and I must admit that it did make me look twice but with further observation it was pretty clear that it was a water/wave only formation. I would dearly love to be wrong but I am pretty sure that it isn't the LNM. I too would like to hear GB's opinion about it.
DeleteI do not accept that the object we are looking at is a wave.
DeleteAnyway, I will start writing an article in the days ahead. Not sure when it will be finished.
I agree with Pete and thought it was a wave as soon as I looked at the photo with the object the furthest away. Bright even says he was cruising on the loch at the time - it is clearly taken from the back of the boat and we are seeing boat/propeller wash.
DeleteWell, It does not look like a wave. Actually, it looks like a horse-like head complete with eyes, snout and mouth. Yes, I can see two possible horns and maybe a mane. I like it!!
ReplyDeleteIts not a wave or prop wash. It looks too solid. Its something animate, the question is what? IMHO
ReplyDeleteLooks kinda like a hippo to me.
ReplyDeletethe expanded view seems to show white water from the propeller, and the 'object' is where the boat was a few seconds earlier (if I'm interpreting it correctly - was he looking back at the time?). Either Nessie was upset about nearly being run over and made an appearance, or it's just a wave :) The expanded view shows other dark objects, but they seem clearly to be waves. I think he photographed the Loch Ness Wavester
ReplyDeleteif this is Nessie's head, it has no resemblance to the head in the Hugh Gray photo. thoughts, anyone?...
ReplyDeleteUnless we have a shape shifter, that is a valid comment.
DeleteMaybe it's that infernal labrador without it's stick this time ;-)
DeleteI have to agree. This is an interesting picture (and looks to me like a horse-head) but I'm going to chalk it up to pareidolia. I'll tell you why: it is impossible to reconcile the bulky, horse-like head that seems to appear in this picture with the more lengthy, land sighting by Margaret Munro recently discussed. She saw a tiny head turning on a long thin neck (as have many others) - not the thick neck and head of a marine cart-horse! Apart from the bizarre Fordyce sighting, I don't recall any other mention of Nessie as actually looking horse-like - her huge humps and thin neck/small head are the standard.
ReplyDeleteGlasgow Boy, I take on board your point about the "water horse" tradition. However, I would point out that if "Kelpies" (or "water horses") were the traditional, parochial name for Nessie creatures, that doesn't necessarily mean they looked like horses. It could be an offshoot from the mediaeval belief that each water-based creature had an equivalent on land. They didn't necessary look alike, though: for example, porpoises and seals were once popularly known in Britain as "sea hogs" despite looking nothing like pigs. Perhaps the myth of shapeshifting water demons which pretended to be horses developed from a tradition of as-yet unknown (to modern science) lake/marine animals that were thought of as the horses of the deep, despite not resembling horses.
My initial impression was that of a hump or the back portion of the neck. The head interpretation is not the only one.
DeleteI agree with you on modern Nessie vs old Kelpie heads. A horse head was a good fit for the old story tellers who tried to make sense of what they were seeing in the loch (and I presume head-neck sightings were just as rare back then).
GB I remembered reading this on the UM forum last year and thought it might be of interest to you, so here is the link. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=233770&hl=loch ness monster&st=0
DeleteIt seems pretty genuine to me and might be a candidate for further investigation.
I agree with Jenny. Some people are jumping on the pareidolia/simulacra band wagon. Admitingly, the object looks solid and has shape, form and bilateral symmetry, but to come to the conclusion that it represents a horse like creature’s head is premature. Although, in some of the literature, going back to Tim Dinsdale’s seminal first book Loch Ness Monster (1961), witnesses describe a horse like, giraffe like, goat like, and even a bulldog like head/face, with one eyewitness going so far as to state that the “face” was extremely ugly (gargoyle?). Take your pick. But these descriptions do not agree with the “absurdly small head” to neck/body ratio of some witnesses! So much for reliable testimony. The horse head metaphor associated with water kelpies, is just that, an analogy.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents: I think this is a photoshop manipulation of the wave. The amount of detail as well as contrast in that wave versus the lighting angles of the water surrounding it (including other waves behind it in the near distance) makes me think this is a photoshopping expedition....
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to add an additional two cents on a previous entry, about the possiblity of carcasses and super large amphibians (like frogs) living in Loch Ness (and I will throw in Loch Morar too here)--why should the Loch Ness mystery concern only "one" animal/creature unknown to science? If there is one, why not multiple (types of) creatures? The body of water isn't pond-sized, that's for sure....
Just a thought.
I would also like to read (if Glasgow Boy agrees) a blog post about thse alleged caves discovered by the Rines expedition back in the early 2000s inside Loch Ness (fairly deep down, they might be)...how many, how large, how deep are they, etc....has any ROVs explored these?
Does anyone know?
Extra detail can also be explained by a more complex object being present amongst the waves. The contrast looks no different to me compared to other waves in the uncropped picture I have.
DeleteMore than one monster type? I think I have enough on my hands trying to figure out just what one is!
What blog entry was that?
GB there's clearly excrescences of some sort there but dependin' on how y'read the image are they i) running 'long the spine or ii) starfish crown like?
ReplyDeleteNow if it was supposed t'be the Great Cthulu...!
One photograph ?.The spirit of Wilson and Edwards is back.
ReplyDeleteAll explained in the FT issue.
DeleteGlasgow Boy, I mean that you haven't put together a blog about the caves as of yet, but I would be keenly interested in reading an entry about these underwater caverns at Loch Ness if you so decide to do one. That's what I meant.
ReplyDeleteI still think (until we see multiple images of something actually appearing to move from still to still) that it's a photoshopping expedition.
Loch Ness may have more than one creature unknown to science contained in it. And it may have a connection to the ocean. I dimly remember the Rines expedition discovering that there is animal or plant life in Loch Ness that also exists in the ocean--previously not known until water samples on the bottom were taken....(if my memory serves)
The Rines expeditions of the 1970s, found what could be caverns or caves using side-scan sonar. Nothing would be gained by sending ROVs to check them out owing to the opacity of the peat stained water. The existence of underwater tunnels leading to the ocean has been ruled out due to lack of leveling out of the loch level to sea level. Loch Ness water level is about 50 ft. above sea level. Animal life present in the loch consists of salmon, trout, char, eel, sturgeon and of course Nessie. Little to no plant life at depths is possible, again due to the opacity of the water preventing photosynthesis required for plant life. The same Rines expedition produced the famous or infamous underwater “flipper” still photos which seemed to show movement from one position to another. Depending on who you talk to and believe they are either genuine or something else due to the enhancement or retouching controversy.
DeleteThere's a new documentary in the NatGeo about the Great Lakes,mostly about Lake Superior,about how it was formed and the underwater channels created by the extreme cold of the ice at the very bottom.I don't think that of Loch Ness.Remind you that Pressie is said to inhabit Lake Superior,one of the long-necked pinnipeds,possibly.
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=546685242033278&set=a.537107209657748.1073741830.537100722991730&type=1&relevant_count=1
Looks like Nessie with baby Nessie on her back. If you interpret the photo as a face looking towards the camera, then look above. It looks like a smaller version of the head below it!
ReplyDeleteHave a look back to the September 2011 follow up visit by Glasgow boy to the Jon Rowe photograph near the Dores fish farm. The close up picture of the protusions or horns in that picture look very much like the possible 'horns' in this picture. You can also imagine the back, if slightly under the water, would look very much like the shape under the water in the Jon Rowe photograph. Very interesting,
ReplyDeleteI noticed that coincidence as well. I'm still wondering if any interviewer ever asked Rowe if those protrusion were buoys present before the sighting that were being displaced by what moved under them, or if they appeared to be part of object in the sighting and photo. And if one looks at the outline of the strange object in the 2009 Monckton photo, there are also paired protrusions at about the 11 o'clock position. Odd, odder, and oddest!
DeleteYes, I also see some protuberances on the Monckton photo. If the photo is genuine, what could they be? I also see some delineation at the 5 O’clock position. Possible appendage/limb? If one assumes the view is of a retreating Nessie shot from the rear and above, could the elongated feature extending to the left be interpreted as a tail? I hope GB gathers enough info soon (hint hint, nudge nudge) to do an analysis. By the way, Roland has dubbed the photo the “roast chicken” shot. Don’t know how original that is!
DeleteThe picture doesn't make much sense to me if you're looking at the back of the head of something but rather does if you're actually looking at a face in somewhat 3/4 view.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the whole underwater cave theory and the loch being 50 ft above sea level..... I may be wrong here off the top of my head... but the loch would lose water only if this cave outlet to the sea was level to or below the elevation of the lochs water line. Also depending how far down along the lochs walls this hypothetical tunnel is would give varying results.
I assume you're saying that the lochs surface is 50 feet above sea level and not the entire loch itself, right?
So, for example, if there was a tunnel 50ft below the surface and this tunnel either stayed level before sloping, or just plain sloped downward to the ocean you'd more or less drain the loch of 50 ft of water.
However, if this cave or tunnel somehow sloped above the lochs waterline somewhere within the surrounding mountainous terrain before sloping downward towards the ocean, you wouldn't have the problem of the loch's waters seeking equilibrium with the ocean.
I suppose this would need to apply to some connections to the sea from the loch no matter how far down in depth.... at some point they'd need to slope upward above the lochs water level lest they drain.
But I'm not even considering the reverse....of the oceans effect in this matter.
Of course Nessie would also need to be an air breather as it traveled this bit of air gap between ocean and loch. ;)
Jon
You make some valid points. I was thinking more or less of a strait tunnel and I would think that any cave leading to a tunnel would be no deeper than 50 some ft. to reach equilibrium with sea level. And yes I meant Loch water surface level. But I see your point about a sloping or ascending tunnel, sort of like a trap in a drain. And who knows, maybe there would be caverns somewhere along the tunnel length. But this is all guess work on my part and my limited logical thinking, being neither an engineer nor an expert in hydrology or hydrodynamics. I mostly go with the literature available on that subject. One of the best explanations for the layman, of which I am one, was by Tim Dinsdale in his book Loch Ness Monster (1961) on the possible existence of subterranean tunnels. Simple and concise. Mr. Dinsdale had a knack for keeping things simple for the average person. And he was an engineer! Even back then there was speculation of underground caves/tunnels as an entry and exit for creatures to and from the sea. Tim even stated that such a possibility was “quite insubstantial “. But that was all speculation then as it is now.
DeleteJohn, for more info on possible (but highly improbable) tunnels connecting Loch Ness to the sea, have a look at Dick Raynor's article on this topic here:
Deletehttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Tunnels.html
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=601646663203802&set=a.537107209657748.1073741830.537100722991730&type=1&theater
ReplyDeleteWell, that's certainly different. looks like the first hump grew another bigger hump. Somebody must be playing around with Photoshop.
DeleteYes, but not Mr. Bright!
DeleteThis appears to be a rather unsuccesfull attempt to enlarge the 'object', by zooming in a cropped edit of the photo that you had initially published here, Glasgow Boy, I think... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=600689243299544&set=pb.537100722991730.-2207520000.1384821816.&type=3&theater
DeleteBut of course the resolution is poor...
Certainly not Mr. Bright! Rather “Mr. Bright and cute” idea man.
DeleteAddendum to last comment above, not implying photo is a Photoshop hoax. Referring to other person or persons unknown as "Bright and cute". Just a moment of levity and play on words.
DeleteOf course it's Photoshop,picture in picture enhancement.
DeleteSorry Claudio, didn't know it was you doing a blowup/enhancement analysis. Thought you picked it up somewhere. "Case of the replicating mutant Nessie" solved. Case closed. :-)
DeleteGlasgow Boy,
ReplyDeleteI have been reading with interest all the stuff here. But I must take issue with you about not finding materials relating to the ocean in Loch Ness, and the caves.
In the Academy of Applied Science newsletter (I believe perhaps the 4th quarter?) for 2001, entitled SPARKS, we read the following: on page 2:
"the ROV did discover large undercuts or caverns (long rumored but now photographically documented) in a steep 70 [degree] solid rocky " grand canyon" of Horshoe Scree on the southern shore near Fort Augustus. Also, several bays of the main loch could have harbored targets evading our sound beams on our longitudinal "acoustic netting" sweeps of the 24 mile long loch.... Horseshoe Scree gave up another previously unknown secret that may bear upon the food chain of Loch Ness-colonies of orange, living gelatinous "matts" (pictured left) apparently never before known to exist in fresh water lochs. With Mike Nicholson of Deep Sea Systems remotely piloting the ROV on its 1100-foot control cable, we tried unsuccessfully to scoop these up with nets attached to the ROV, but the "matts" disintegrated on the 600-foot rise from the bottom. Again, our Scottish colleagues will try to bring up a sample for analysis and identification.... We're also cautiously optimistic that marine clamshells, discovered by Frank Dougherty when they were accidentally brought up with the bottom silt of the loch by our deep dragging anchor, may at long last be the first positive clues to the possible presence of the sea in the great rift harboring fresh-water Loch Ness. This discovery presents quite favorable implications for how "Nessie(s)" may have entered the Loch...."
Very interesting. I’ve never read that report, as material is sometimes hard to find. What is your link, if any, to the source? I do know of a document published by The Society for Scientific Exploration, Journal of Scientific Exploration, coauthored by ROBERT H. RINES AND FRANK M. DOUGHERTY, link here: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_rines.pdf which seems to support the hypothesis that Loch Ness was once an ancient arm of the sea, and the possible avenue of entrance for “large sea animals” to have populated Loch Ness. Mainly a paper on the origin of Loch Ness. By the way, in defense of Glasgow Boy, he makes no claim for “not finding materials” on this specific Blog page. But he can speak for himself if he so wishes.
DeleteYes, fascinating and unknown to me as well...more? Links?
DeleteTry these:
Delete• http://www.njan.org/Loch%20Ness%20Monster%20Controversy.php
• http://www.njan.org/camp1.php
• http://www.njan.org/camp2.php
• http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html
Some LNM stuff here:
• http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html
If Glasgow Boy will provide a contact e-mail, I can send him scans of the newsletter in question. I believe a copy of the newsletter appeared on Dale Drinnon's blog "Frontiers of Zoology." But I don't know if it is there now. But I encourage people to look. Back in April 2013 Dale had a blog posting about the carcass located on the bottom of Loch Ness, with video stills from the ROV of the "formation" that was found (also mentioned in this newsletter--I believe from the fourth quarter, as it talks about the 3rd quarter newsletter in passing).
ReplyDeleteSure, send it to shimei123@yahoo.co.uk
DeleteIn regards to Rines sonar results, I would like to see a revisit to the sites in question with modern equipment. Perhaps there are overhangs and caves but what do we see forty years on?
OK, I apologize for my immediately previous e-mail where I failed to provide acessible links to the SPARKS newsletter. Glasgowboy, you don't need to provide a contact e-mail. I did a little bit of rummaging, and found the appropriate URL links.
ReplyDeleteHere is the URL link so others can read the newsletter on Dale Drinnon's blog, although it is only the first two pages of the said newsletter.
http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/04/robert-rines-2001-carcass-and-unknown.html
Additionally, there is another blog posting on Dale Drinnon's blog on the carcass as well, and this is the further URL link:
http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/02/scott-mardis-and-2001-nessie-carcass.html
Now in the commentary below this specific blog posting, Dick Raynor believes that the "formation" is quite small, as in only inches in length.
But everyone can read the materials, check out the video stills and comparative photos provided by Scott Mardis, and make up their own minds.
All very interesting, but checkout this MonsterQuest video on YouTube. Pertains to what you are referring to. Comes in three parts, I think. Couldn't find the full length one I saw before. It might have been pulled. Try searching under “MonsterQuest - The Loch Ness Monster (Documentary)” The original broadcast title is “Death of Loch Ness”. Here’s the only one I could find. A must see!
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1jcv8hyXk
Brand new here. Just have to add what my grandmother told me. She said she saw the creature in 1941 while sitting at the back of a bus. Said it had a long neck that protruded out of the water. My grandmother never lied and to me this alone validates the existence of some kind of creature.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. I'll check the records for anything from 1941, though not much was reported in the war years. Was it ever reported?
Delete