Tuesday, 3 December 2013

Analysis of the Jonathan Bright Picture

Two weeks ago I published the latest photograph of the Loch Ness Monster without much in the way of comment. Jonathan's story and photo have already been published in the latest issue of Fortean Times (No.308) and so now having had a closer look at the picture and the accompanying facts, let us see what else can be found out.

The photograph was taken by Jonathan Bright on the morning of the 2nd November 2011 as his ride on the Jacobite Cruiser boat was heading out towards Urquhart Bay. He was snapping pictures randomly with various cameras. As he was looking out from the stern of the boat, he snapped a series of pictures with his specially adapted infra-red camera but did not notice anything unusual at the time or even later, during his initial review of the pics. But it was a coincidence of the unexpected kind that prompted him to go back and check what he had.




For it was on that same day that George Edwards claimed to have taken his now infamous picture of a hump in Loch Ness. When Edwards' picture became news in August 2012 and thinking he might have taken pictures in that vicinity, Jonathan reviewed his snaps and did indeed find something unusual. However, what Jonathan Bright photographed is not what George Edwards photographed.




Based on what Jonathan has said, the picture was taken as the Jacobite was a few minutes out of the pier beside the Clansman Hotel and a suggested point is circled in the map below. The boat would be generally heading south west towards the vicinity of Urquhart Castle (marked A). The time would have been shortly after 11am when the tour boat departed from the harbour.




So what is in this first ever infra-red photograph of the mystery of Loch Ness? A zoom in of the picture reveals a bit more detail. In fact and in my opinion, it reveals something that looks out of the ordinary. But first, let us try and get some data out of this picture.



Jonathan kindly provided me with the uncropped image, the EXIF data and the model and make of his digital camera. From that an estimate of the object's size and distance can be made from the focal length, crop factor, distance to horizon, height of witness standing at the stern of the boat and relative distance of object to horizon.

That gave an object height of about 0.75 metre and a distance from the observer of about 31.5 metres. If we assume the object is turned at an angle of about 45 degrees to the observer, then the side aspect is estimated to be about 1.3 metres. This was based on the camera being 2.8 metres above the water. But a greater witness height would result in a bigger and more distant object and vice versa. So, for example, a combined witness/boat height of 3.5 metres gives an object height of 0.93m and a distance of 40 metres. If any wants the full trigonometrical calculations, send me an email.

So it is an object of some proportions but not as big as some Nessie sightings. But what are the possible candidates for such an object appearing on the surface of Loch Ness? Based on your comments to the previous posts, I address them here.


DEBRIS SUCH AS A LOG

Are we simply looking at a natural object such as a log or some man made rubbish? Apart from the shape of the object not suggesting the usual stuff that floats around Loch Ness, several other things dictated against this interpretation.

Firstly, Jonathan was on a boat ploughing through the water. I emailed Marcus Atkinson, who operates one of the large cruise boats at Loch Ness. I asked him what they do when an obstacle lies dead ahead of the boat.

He said they normally steer a course around it unless it is something minuscule such as twigs. So it is unlikely that such an object is going to end up only 31 metres behind the boat.

Secondly, once the object is avoided, the bow wave of the boat is going to be another reason why the object won't be so easily found right behind the boat. The reason being that the outward going bow wave will tend to push objects away from the boat's direction of travel.

Thirdly, even if the boat went over the object due to it being very low in the water, how come it manages to appear nearly a metre high on the other side? In the light of these propositions, I do not regard the debris as a valid theory. (Jacobite Cruises do have a catamaran boat which technically allows debris to pass underneath but it was not commissioned until 2012).


THE PASSING WAVE

The other explanation offered is that this is merely a wave. This might seem to carry more weight than floating logs. A quote from the Great Loch Ness Monster Debate Facebook page is appropriate here.

In my opinion, as a boat skipper who daily sees the waves made by the larger trip boats near Urquhart Castle, the "Nessie" photo is indistinguishable from the usual interference waves generated when the bow-wave from a south-west bound boat meets the north-east moving wind generated waves on an ordinary day. If someone offers a more logical explanation I will be pleased to learn from it.

So, be it logs or waves, the skeptics say their bit, mark it "solved" and move on (and let it be known that monsters do not constitute a "logical explanation"). Meanwhile, I had obtained the Fortean Times issue which carried the story of this photograph. Elsewhere in the issue, I came across a quote from Charles Fort which summed up it all up for me.

"When I see that a thing has been explained, I go on investigating."

So let's get on with the investigating. There are some reasons why I do not agree with this wave theory.

The person whom I quoted on waves is Dick Raynor. He has spent decades at the loch taking pictures of phenomena which can fool inexperienced observers of the loch. I looked at his web page on waves and wakes to see what his years of taking pictures has produced. I assume it was representative of his research on this topic. 

To put it bluntly, none of his photos look like the object in Jonathan's picture. But his quote says it is indistinguishable from the "usual interference waves" on the loch. I take the word "usual" to mean these are a common phenomenon, so he must have a better picture on file somewhere which matches Jonathan's picture.

In the meantime, the photos on his site show waves which are too flat, extended and appears together in sequential groups. Neither of these apply to the object in our picture which is more peaked and is on its own. I have scanned the uncropped picture and see no evidence of this being in those classes of wakes and waves. That is how we determine if it is distinguishable from the "usual" waves. The photograph below shows an actual Jacobite cruiser interacting with another boat wake. I see nothing in this picture to suggest the production of a stand out lone metre high wave.



Jonathan also sent me the photographs he took immediately before and after our main picture. The one below was taken seconds before and shows nothing.  However, I overlaid the Nessie picture over it and it just makes the right hand edge of the overlay. So, it is a matter of debate whether our object would have appeared in both pictures since its direction of travel is not clear.




Furthermore, the photo below which was taken after Nessie is too far to the observer's right hand side but is included to show the lack of any proposed interference waves. Readers may note unusual colouring of the pictures. This is because they were taken in infra-red. I have not come to any conclusion as to whether this adds to or takes away from the analysis of the picture.

Jonathan says it is a picture taken with τhe internal IR pass filter of his camera, which allows infrared light from 720 nM (the near infrared range extending from 700nM to 1000 or 1400nM, depending on the dividing system). So this is not in the thermal IR range beloved of Bigfoot Flir camera hunts. Jonathan's own comment on near IR suggests:

"The dark/light colors seem to rather depend on the composition of the surfaces, for example, healthy vegetation/chlorophyll reflects large amount of near-infrared light, thus giving the whitish appearance to the tree leaves and grass, while rocky surfaces reflect little nIR light. But I really don't know how a 'Loch Ness monster' body would behave."

Perhaps this is a clue which suggests the object in the picture is of a more rough texture. 




The other issue I noted was the height of the wave compared to others round about. Consider how waves normally interfere constructively to produce one bigger wave. The compound wave cannot be greater than the combined energies of its parent waves.  This wave looks at least twice as big as the waves around it which suggests another boat or wind source of comparable energy is nearby churning out waves.

There is no indication of such a thing in the picture. Indeed, the Jacobite cruisers are amongst the most powerful boats in the loch and, being November, I think the other cruises have closed out for the season. I am wondering what powerful boat could be around to provide this additional energy? Not that it matters, this "wave" does not look like such a wave. Jonathan also commented on how this "wave" seems to have water running off it as suggested by the white "streaks" you can see around its base.





OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Could it be an animal known to science such as a seal? I do not consider this a seal as the back would look smoother and more rounded. Could it be a sturgeon? Well, despite the fact that such a sight would be extremely rare, I do not think an Atlantic Sturgeon could arch its back like that or display the contours I think I can see.

Finally, it was perhaps no surprise that it was suggested that Jonathan had faked the photograph via the ubiquitous Photoshop. Now, this gets trotted out now and again and I suspect without much in the way of analysis. But these type of images are becoming more and more prevalent and the Loch Ness researcher needs to be able to conversant with their tell tale signs.

But based on my conversations with Jonathan, he comes across as no faker to me. Moreover, to my less than expert eye, the image looks "in situ" based on contrast and light considerations. It is darker than the waves around it, but that is more an argument against it being a wave than a digital artifact.

Moreover, Jonathan is not a tourist seeking five minutes of fame. He is involved in various public events in Greece as a researcher and it would be plain stupid to put all this on the line for a fake photo. Indeed, why not make it a better photo and add a sequence if one was intent on fooling people?

Others may wish to comment, but please state your reasons rather than just state your opinion!


THE LOCH NESS MONSTER

So what could it be? How about I go out on a limb and suggest it is the Loch Ness Monster? Considering the estimated dimensions, this looks more like the head and neck of the creature than its main body. Jonathan has suggested he can see the head looking back at him but I have reservations about that interpretation. In fact, to me the object looks somewhat similar to the photo taken by Sidney Wilson back in 2007 (below). However, I think Jonathan's is a better picture and again we have to be wary of the effects of pareidolia. Indeed, the Wilson image looks like a polar bear's head to me!



I do agree with Jonathan that the picture could be interpreted as a head with two white horn-like projections being visible. It could even be argued that two eyes can be made out and a muzzle of some description. What can be seen is to some extent dictated by the viewer.

But in my opinion, the proposed head is too large to fit what we know about the head and neck of the Monster from the witness database. By and large, the classic head is lacking in features and sometimes is no more than a continuation of the neck. I say that without going into detail about what this "head" may actually be. Moreover, the proposed head gives the impression of looking back in the direction it appears to be travelling in which looks quite un-animal like behaviour to me.

The other question to ask is how big the entire creature is for a head in this size range? Now when I say the head is too big, I mean in terms of internal proportions rather than absolute size. If we assume a 0.6m (1ft11in) head height from the picture, I would estimate the entire size based on a rough and ready plesiosaur body shape to be 12:1 overall giving us a 23 footer (a respectable size for a Loch Ness Monster).

Jonathan is a member of the sizeable community of paranormal researchers and is open to such an interpretation for Nessie, so that does offer a wider latitude in interpreting the picture.  However, there are some recorded sightings which claim to see larger heads and I would neither wish to be dogmatic or claim the final word on that matter. In fact, the head and neck reported by J.M. Ballantyne in 1965 is a good example in that regard (sketch below).




On the subject of backs, there was one back sighting that immediately came to mind when I saw this picture and that was the Commander Meiklem report from August 1933. He saw a ridged back in the relatively shallow waters of Inchnacardoch Bay. I say that because there is the appearance of something ridge-like running along the top of the object.





But Meiklem's object was at least the size of a "cart-horse", this is a lot smaller. Back ridges are occasionally reported by witnesses but they are not a universal feature of Nessie morphology which leads me to speculate whether it is a feature that is specific to age, gender or season.

Or could it be the back of a juvenile Nessie? If we know little about the Loch Ness Monster, then we know even less about alleged little Nessies. Do they even exist? One presumes so biologically but next to nothing can be said about them from the witness record. I addressed this subject in a previous article.

But if I suggest that this is the rear view of the head and neck then could the proposed ridge be more akin to the mane of the legendary water horse? Again, we have reports of mane like structures being reported by witnesses. And again, they are not a universal feature of the witness record and so I presume they are also gender, age or season specific. The problem is similar to the old tale of the blind men and the elephant. What exactly are we looking at? Neck, back or perhaps even tail?

One aspect of reported manes is that they tend to "flop" down over the neck while this apparent mane looks more erect. Can these mane like structure be raised in the manner of a courtship or territorial display? Yes, I know, speculation.

It is this mane or ridge like structure that distinguishes the object from any proposed wave, log or other object but the picture highlights an ongoing issue. This was taken at a mere range of about 100 feet but still there is no unambiguous data to extract. By unambiguous, I mean acceptable even to sceptics (but perhaps I use that term too optimistically).

Admittedly, the object's relatively small size is a hindrance, but how close does one have to get to this creature to get the picture that gets the whole world talking? If it had been a classic ten foot hump then we would get closer to that scenario.

In conclusion, I think this is a picture of the Loch Ness Monster. I think it tells Nessie researchers a bit more about the creature's morphology but does not provide the slam dunk evidence.

To rephrase some words mentioned above, if someone offers a more logical explanation I will be pleased to learn from it.

















60 comments:

  1. Another good analysis GB.
    This has to be one of the best photos, although confusing by the infared aspect.
    I finally got my hands on FT308, so have read the story a few times now, infact it's at the side of me now as I write this, and agree he doesn't come across as an attention seeker, and infact, puts a very reasoned case across.

    I'm with you on the 'usual' waves scenario..... if it's "usual interference caused by a bow wave from a SW heading boat meeting with as NE directional wind," as is stated, then surely all the other waves on that side of the bow wave would be more or less the same, ie, white spray coming from the top of the head/mound ?

    It's a shame there wasn't another, immediate 'next' shot, because looking at the water around the breach, it could've been a fair size.
    I'm not sure on the head aspect though, we could be falling down the usual path of seeing what you believe, but I feel that it's moving away from the camera, N,NE kind of direction.
    After all, it's not as if Nessie's going to crop up behind a boat, stick her tongue out and go "ner ner nee ner ner!" is it? ;-)

    Iain P

    ReplyDelete
  2. It looks like the Gargoyle Head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that's unfortunate, as it will confusticate those who haven't gotten the word that the Gargoyle Head shot was a tree stump. But that is not to say the Bright photo is a tree stump. I would go out on a limb (sorry, pun intended) to say this thing is not a tree stump.

      Delete
  3. how about an outline around the photo ala the Hugh Gray photo, so we can see your interpretation of what the object might be? personally, I see a canine-like face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I was going to do that but could not find a white ink pen. I find using digital software difficult to draw smooth lines. I'll go and buy one!

      Delete
  4. I never did think it was a wave. My first impression of a sturgeon probably holds no water (no pun intended). I’ll leave the in-depth analysis to far more qualified researchers to make their cases. Readers can then make up their own minds and take sides.

    My personal thoughts: If it was a wave, it would have had to be one freakish one of nature to form such a solid, symmetrical looking form. It was almost directly behind the boat, relatively close and in its wash, so interfering/interacting waves from another boat could not be a factor. As for a log, again one fluke of an occurrence to have taken that form, plus as stated in the analysis, the prow of the boat in addition to the bow wave would have pushed it further off to the side.

    As to the smallness of the “hump” and its attendant dorsal frill, if that’s what it was, a case could possibly be made for a juvenile Nessie, including life stage development, gender etc., assuming the existence of such creatures. I’ll file it in my mental vault as a probable. If it was a Nessie, to have surfaced so close to the boat, it sure came close to getting a buzz cut from the propeller!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Facing the boat while also moving backwards away from the boat are not incompatible proposals. Any animal with paddles or paddle-like appendages should, theoretically, be capable of back-paddling given reason. I'd say darn near getting your head chopped off from a boat prop passing you from behind might constitute reason. Although given Nessie's legendary sensitivity to sound, how could it not have heard the boat coming up from behind? That question might not apply though, as the object was not struck -- only then would it have been a sensory failure. That's maybe the most intriguing. If it were an inanimate object floating that high, the boat should have hit it. If it were an inanimate object floating far enough down to be missed, then what's it doing so high out of the water a second later? Very, very tempting then to call this an animate object that knew when to duck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the 4th photo, I see the head of an octopus. Google the phrase "octopus
    photos" and compare. Not sure how an octopus would come to those waters
    though...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the age of 13, I grew up spending most of my summer daytime in the sea, fishing octopus, with a harpoon, or even with bare hands. In the course of time this teenage hobby has been dropped, when I realized that the feeling of killing anything alive didn't really fit in my philosophy. Nevertheless I still have a very clear idea about what an octopus head looks like and believe me it doesn't look like this at all (-not to mention that it would have no place swimming on the surface, several hundred feet above the bottom in a freshwater loch). Unless of course you meant something like this...;) http://cdn.superbwallpapers.com/wallpapers/funny/the-loch-ness-monster-is-an-octopus-15655-1920x1200.jpg

      Delete
  7. Burton Caruthers5 December 2013 at 08:12

    So, Bright didn't see it while he was snapping pictures, didn't know it was there or that he had photographed it, and just it happened to be on the same day that charlatan George Edwards faked his photograph? M'kay, I can smell the credibility from here.
    So, beyond the fact that it resembles Tony the Tiger, an octopus, or various other things, we're also supposed to believe it playfully ducks running watercraft despite years of being completely elusive? Again... M'kay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi again GB. If I'm not mistaken all the Jacobite cruisers are equipped with sonar equipment. Would it be possible to make any enquiries to see if anything unusual was recorded on that particular day and around the same time that the photos were taken as they might keep records of sonar readings going back some time.

      Delete
    2. Pete, I have already emailed them some questions but not that, so will ask for clarification. But two years on, I would not be hopeful of any records remaining.

      Delete
    3. Burton Caruthers7 December 2013 at 14:06

      Well, that answer was short and sweet GB, lol. I do agree that it's not a wave; I contend it's a computer manipulation of nothing more than an ordinary wave. I truly do find the notion that on the same day Edwards was faking away his photo Mr. Bright managed to capture the real McCoy elsewhere on the Loch quite amusing.
      I would also like to say that, while I often disagree with your assessments on the evidence, I enjoy your blog and all the commentary. It's a daily read and a bookmark. Keep up the good work.

      Delete
    4. I let the article do the talking, Burton. But I would add that Edwards photo was not taken on the day claimed.

      Delete
    5. Burton Caruthers9 December 2013 at 15:38

      Regardless of when Edwards actually took his, it's still quite funny that both photos were allegedly taken on the same day and it was the breaking of the Edwards photo that caused Bright to take a second look at his film. It's a nice folly of leg pulling, along with the suggestions of Nessie playing chicken with the boat yet nobody noticing it at the time. Ah, on to the next one!

      Delete
    6. The 'Edwards' photo has certainly not been shot on the same day, and this was quite obvious to me even before I read several reports showing that the weather conditions on 2/11/11 were not the ones appearing in his picture. This was something I already knew, since the sky and the surface of the loch in my pictures were nothing like the sunny calm day shown in the 'hump' photo... But I don't suppose there can be any doubt about when my own photos had been shot, since the exif data show the date of November 2nd, and besides, as much as I would love to, I'm not living somewhere near by the loch; I was only visiting during a 16 day trip around UK and stayed there for those two nights (1st & 2nd Nov), as could be confirmed from various different sources (hotels, car rental receipts, etc.)

      Yes, it does look weird and in a way perhaps even kind of funny that my photo has been shot on the same day that Edwards was claiming to have shot his own picture, (in fact, it is such weird synchronicities that have made me more inclined to seek for a 'paranormal' explanation), but I really don't understand how this could be used as an argument against the credibility of my photo!... Why would I want to deliberately involve Edwards' photo in this? His picture showed just a 'hump' at some distance that even if it were real, it could be anything, and already it had been shown to be a hoax only a few weeks after it had been published. So, I don't understand exactly how my photo (that could have even been used as evidence to disprove Edwards' claims, since it showed the actual weather conditions on November the 2nd), could benefit from his hoax story in any way... o.O

      I understand that for some people it will be easier to believe that the picture is manipulated rather than genuine, since the appearance of a horned 'monstrous' head popping out of the water is extreme enough to put to challenge some deeper beliefs and personal views. But it would be nice if such speculations when expressed in public are based on sensible arguments rather than ironic insinuations that only target in creating false discrediting impressions...

      Delete
    7. Johnathan : I know it is nessie I have comparisons from my sightings and others to prove that if you want to talk I asked to join your group on facebook... don't listen to the debunkers they would totally freak out if It was to show up right behind them especaially if it were smiling LOL

      Delete
  8. The Loch Ness Monster does not and cannot exist. Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I guess we can all go home then!

      Delete
    2. The preponderance of the evidence would suggest that there is. Fragmented and elusive as it is.

      Delete
  9. bodge from suffolk5 December 2013 at 12:32

    I've read with great interest your analysis of the 'bright' photo but i really can't get excited by it..i think to call it a photo of the loch ness monster is a nonsense.Unfortunately in a world that is awash with the finest camera's/camcorders we still cannot get a picture that the majority of folk would say 'yes that really could be the loch ness monster' the same goes for ufo's/aliens/ghosts etc etc & it seems to be people interpreting images into what they are happiest/comfortablest to see as in comments above with people seeing ducks/octopus/the gargoyle head etc, show 100 people get 100 different answers.
    Having said this & having been interested in loch ness for 40 odd years & visiting as often as i can i still find the whole subject fascinating

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seriously. It's a wave. It's a wave caught in a fragment of time, which makes it look odd, but it's still just a wave. You're reading so much into it that simply isn't there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, can you address my points on why I do not think it is a wave?

      Delete
    2. i deleted your comment since you refuse to even acknowledge I raised any points and revert to insults.

      Delete
  11. Time for some levity. This is the culprit on the shore...

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bPwDbFivsEw/TCOZeB6QjJI/AAAAAAAABwQ/lCAKr0NDXjE/s1600/horror_of_party_beach_01.jpg

    Lyall

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Loch Ness Monster evolved! Like the kooky theory that if dinosaurs hadn't perished they would have evolved to take on humanoid forms. Instead we have dinobirds

      Delete
  12. bodge from suffolk6 December 2013 at 11:32

    Hi again . I would call it a freak wave , caught in a split second & the rest is peoples imagination . Living near the sea all my life i really cannot see anything unusual about the image .In my unscientific assessment of the photo it seems that with all disturbance of the boat two small waves coming from different directions have collided , i'm sure if you tried to duplicate it then you could spend ages trying with no success or get it straight away ! Only last year i saw in the mouth of an estuary nearby what i thought was the head of some creature that seemed to surface occasionally but watching it i could see it was just my imagination playing tricks with the 2 different currents of the rivermouth & the sea colliding causing dark shapes that appeared to be solid.The good thing about this web blog & your continuing analysis of items of interest is that it shows that people are still very much interested in 'nessie' which can only be a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it's faked, but I have to say that in the overall photo the 'monster' looks like a wave to me. If you handed me the photo without comment I don't think the feature you're focusing on would jump out at me as something unusual. Granted I'm no expert on either 'Nessie' or waves, just giving you my honest reaction.

      Delete
  13. I was just curious, is there such a science as waveology? And, if there is or was, would the laws of that science, taking probability into account, dictate that yes, one could see such a freakish formation depicting the form of a seemingly animate object in maybe 1 chance in a million or even billion. If a boat plied the waters every day on its usual route, and a wave looking exactly or closely like the one in the photo occurred once in one year, using basic arithmetic, 1,000,000 / 365 such an instance would occur once in 2,739.7 years! And in the case of a billion 2,739,726 years!

    At Loch Ness, if no known unknown creature (pardon the oxymoron) was believed to exist there, would one then dismiss it and say “Oh, look how curious it looks like a strange creature, but we all know that can’t be, all known loch life is accounted for” But, since it did occur in loch Ness and we believe, well, some of us believe there is something strange there, wouldn’t it be easier to swallow? The possibility is there. But regrettably, the hard core skeptics, who are closed- minded and insist that there is nothing out of the ordinary in the loch will judge it as nonsense or inconclusive, which is their right, why force it on them. Just my musings, hope my logic makes sense, I’m not a mathematician in probability.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like the artful "swish" white water streaks this photoshop artist gave to the monster head.also the trailing white swish is a nice touch.too bad hoaxers always have to add " the final touch"thus overdoing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, can't win! Now there is too much "detail" in the picture.

      Delete
    2. I am glad the photographer shared this fascinating picture with the rest of us. Lazy-minded scepticism is the price you have to pay for sharing, I guess. I have quite a few videos and pictures of the ufo phenomena that I have only shared with a handful of people. I never felt compelled to share them on the internet. Oh, and they are very good. Nice but strange beings, and not worthy of anonymous "experts" blathering about photoshop!

      Delete
  15. Richard, thank you for your comments. I generally don't mind a healthy dose of scepticism, and as I was telling Glasgow Boy, I'm usually sceptical myself with so many hoax pictures turning up in the web daily. But I have to agree with an article that I was reading the other day, it is one thing to be sceptical and quite another to be a sceptic. The comments suggesting that the photo has been manipulated are made by people who probably see the photo just the same way I do, but because in their world there seems to be no room for 'monsters', the only explanation they are left with is photo-shop...

    It is my intention in the following days to prepare a blog post where I will be explaining in brief my own interpretation of the picture, for those who have missed the Fortean Times article (-which I still recommend to all). I will also include a reply to some of the views expressed in certain comments I have read here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I don't have to resort to photoshop as an excuse. All I see is a wave. No digital manipulation required, and *definitely* no fairies, ghosts or monsters.

      Delete
    2. Well, maybe you should reply then to the relevant remarks made by Glasgow Boy in his analysis. And if you still insist on seeing a 'wave', then I would advise you to read my 2 page article that was published at the Fortean Times Demeber 2013 issue (FT 308) along with the photo. About half of the text is dealing with the examination of this possibility, that the 'object' is a wave. And why, even if what we see is a wave, it may still be the Loch Ness monster...

      Delete
  16. I can barely believe this photo has been given any serious analysis. Look at the full version and you'll see several other waves which are just as "monsterlike". It's a wave, people!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? I stated my reasons why not, feel free to answer them rather than just say "It's a wave".

      All we want is a similar photo from the hundreds (thousands?) of photos of Loch Ness that permeate the web.

      Delete
  17. Im a believer in these creafures but i agree with the above its just a wave. I cant believe we spend so much time analysing these types of photos but ignore far better ones like the photo taken in 2000 that features in the booklet loch ness and inverness by colin baxter.

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://jonathan-brights-urban-tales.blogspot.gr/2014/02/my-experience-with-loch-ness-monster_10.html Here you can read my views, in case you have missed the article in Fortean Times. I also reply several views that have been expressed here, including those suggesting that it is a 'wave', or a 'hoax'. It's a long article (I'm also working on a shorter edit for those not really obsessed with Nessie), but I hope some may find it somehow enlighting. It also includes a slideshow video that I have put together where the 'object' in concern is shown a bit more clearly. Through the text there are also several more or less relevant links that you may find interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't find this picture very convincing at all, and i say that as someone who leans more towards the 'believer' side in the Nessie debate.

    I think the analysis here is erring towards the 'Rhines-ian', ie. making an image fit what you want it to be.

    I think you're playing with semantics when you dissect Mr Raynor's wave explanation. It looks very much to me like a wave, and indeed one that is not out of place with the waves around it when looked at in the wider picture.

    Keep up the good work on this blog though - very good reading indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's a wave.

    The picture used of another boat on the loch to show wave pattern comparison is taken on an evidently calmer and clearer day, and from a higher vantage point at greater distance.

    I'm willing to bet if you replicated the conditions in Mr Bright's picture - size of boat, speed, position of camera, type of lense, prevailing wind - you wouldn't have to wait long to see a few 'Nessies'.

    Looking at the wider picture it looks to me like a natural apex-wave being fed into by other similar looking waves.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Right. For me, after having spent so much time studying the picture its really hard to say whether it's a solid object or a wave, but I see that for others it has been easy to resolve the issue and in determination they state that it's a wave. So then, I take it that from the possible scenarios that I have mentioned in my blogpost, they favour the 'paranormal manifestation' explanation. Fine with me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, i favour the wave explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The wave explanation is the 'paranormal' manifestation explanation, according to the analysis in my blogpost. if you disagree, you should reply to all my arguments, and if you expect your opinion to be taken seriously into consideration, you have to explain how else a wave shaped in such a way at Loch Ness is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Er, i don't 'have to explain' anything really. You're the one who's put your photograph out their, if you can't take commentary without getting needled by it perhaps you shouldn't have.

    I haven't read your blogpost. The image looks to me like a wave. I don't find it remotely unusual or out of place when viewed in the wider frame, in fact it looks entirely in place given the wake around it which looks to me to be feeding into it as an apex wave that's been caught in a moment by the camera.

    As for expecting my opinion to be taken seriously - really, i'm not the one talking about 'paranormal manifestations' here. It looks like a wave.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If you want to simply express your opinion, in other words, if you have felt the desire to just leave a comment here, as you might have written it in your diary, then fine with me. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, so whether you think you see a wave, or an elephant in the picture, that's entirely your own issue and makes little difference to me. But if you expect your comment to be taken into consideration as something more than simply an impression, then it should come with arguments supporting it, shouldn't it?

    I have written a really long post examining all the possibilities, and explaining my views with several arguments, and since you have replied a couple of posts under my earlier comment with the link to my blogpost (Glasgow Boy has actually also made a separate post last month presenting it), I thought you might have seen it and that my arguments have simply been ignored. That's why I may have sounded needled. If you do read it, you will understand the nature of my remark, since the 'wave' scenario is covered at large there.

    As to whether 'paranormal manifestations' can be taken seriously, this would require a long analysis, but it should suffice to say that not everyone has the same criteria with you. Personally, I don't really believe in some boundary that separates 'normal', from 'paranormal', but since we have to use certain words to communicate, I describe as 'paranormal' phenomena which are witnessed by people, but have not been properly understood and adequately explained yet, so for the moment remain controversial. That doesn't mean that I embrace all the traditional ideas. On the contrary, through my investigations, I question and test them, and try to understand better the nature of these phenomena and their mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously, it doesn't matter if anyone has written a million words or even a billion words saying why this isn't a wave, it still is clearly JUST A WAVE. You could write a whole article on any of the waves in this picture, but words do not turn waves into monsters. It's a wave, end of. Move on.

      Delete
    2. You saying so doesn't make it so. It is not "clearly just a wave" to others. No end of. No moving on.

      Delete
    3. You chaps just see what you want to see.

      and don't fire that one back, because I'm on the fence about the monster.

      Delete
    4. Everyone sees what they want to see. The challenge (for both sceptic and non-sceptic) is rising above it.

      Delete
  27. Isn't it funny how many things are just not quite within reach?
    Pictures that can prove 'Something' is there but not give enough info to tell WHAT it is.
    Nessie, big Foot, UFOs, ghosts.
    Many people seem personaly affronted that anything would dare to defy human understanding.
    "The world is more than we know."

    ReplyDelete
  28. As i have said before, i don't find this picture very convincing at all.

    Indeed, on browsing castlecruises website i found a similar wave photograph that i think underscores the fact the Bright image is not particularly unusual.

    Imagine the photo in the link below taken in the same light / UV conditions as the Bright image. To me the wave on the left side of the photograph looks pretty much the same as the Bright wave.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/castlecruiseslochness/8461706380/lightbox/

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sorry, UV - i meant infra red of course. Been a long day.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not sure if this is common knowledge on here, but I came across a daily mail article (yes daily mail I know) which mentioned this photo. It mentioned how the photographer, Joanathan Bright, believes the object shows the creatures head and face, and thinks it resembles the gargoyle head drawing by Robert Rines. Dunno if this is completely made up by the daily mail.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cheers Glasgow boy.

    I wonder why he thinks this;). From the "enhacement" in the daily mail article I kinda understand why because it looks like a horned animal of some type, and I believe there are some reports (both Loch Ness and other lochs, both Scotland & Ireland) of a very unusual horned creature - maybe just result of artifacts through boosting up sharpness. From the typical Nessie POV, this doesn't match the general apperance of what many describe Nessie(s) in its general appearance. However, it's possible there are many different creatures in Loch Ness (completely unrelated) that are unknown to science which account for the discreprences..

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have no idea what it is, but it looks like something tangible and unusual. If Mr Bright has photoshopped this photo, he has done a very fine job from where I am sitting. I use PS everyday, not to fake photos, but to touch them up. I know how to 'add' objects to a scene and it's not the easiest thing to make them look realistic. It takes someone to be very good to leave no trace, but as far as I know, PS leaves instructions embedded in the file if has been processed in PS. That does not mean it had been faked of course.
    What would be invaluable in my opinion, would be a raw file from a higher end camera, and some phones. These are true unprocessed digital 'negatives', if you like, and cannot be doctored. Unfortunately, the general public would not tend to use these files as they have to be processed by appropriate software before they become jpegs.

    ReplyDelete