Saturday, 15 March 2014

A Webcam Photo from Loch Ness

A reader of this blog called Luke emailed me a few days back with a couple of screen grabs he had taken of Loch Ness. The question concerned the dark shaped object that is there in the first snap but not in the second.




Luke cleaned up the image a bit to produce this clearer view of the object.




The webcam says the first image was taken on the 29th January 2013 at 14:17:22 and the second one ten seconds later. You can see a Caley Cruise type boat progressing down the loch on the top right. 

So what is it? In terms of similarities to previous Loch Ness images, it reminded me of the photograph taken during the Edward Mountain expedition of July-August 1934 with that dark line and the blur above it (which I take to be spray thrown upwards).




I agree with Luke in his assessment that it is not something on the lens like the rain drops. The rain drops remain on the second image whilst the object does not. My own initial thought was that it might be an insect flying past the lens. The body is the extended dark line and the wings produce the blurred motion. However, what type of insect that might be I was not certain and I was further unsure whether insects are to be found flying around the cold Highland air in Winter?

However, if it was a large object in the water, then it would have clearly disappeared from view within ten seconds by the time the second webcam shot was taken. This being the case, I would expect some kind of water disturbance to be evident from this disappearing act.

Readers' comments are welcome.









93 comments:

  1. It's a bird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi,

      I have heard that one from a few I have shown the photo to, but there seemed to be no birds in sight from my memory. Do you mean a bird in the water or a bird flying in the air? Sometimes I have observed black coloured birds in those four trees and the paddock area there before but I have noticed if it ever starts to rain they are not there. But it is still a possibility that is a bird in the picture and it flew to somewhere out of the cam's sight very fast, as before it there was no sign of a bird coming from anywhere, and afterwards as you see in the frame taken ten seconds later, no sign of a bird, and the birds of black colour I have observed usually fly into those four trees at the front there or into the paddock area somewhere, and upon looking at the shot ten seconds later, there is nothing there. I still think it could be an insect passing by or some sort of wind effect on the water but it could a bird that went somewhere else - could be a sort that prefers the wet weather and was flying down to the Loch for food, but I am not overly familiar with the species of birds or their behaviour in the Loch Ness area.

      Delete
    2. Looks like "it" moved to fast making the picture blurry, could be nessie.

      Delete
  2. Hi, thanks for posting this. Looking forward to people's responses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now that;s what I'd expect a bushy floating island to look like. Except that in this case it'd be a sinking island. Either that or the Provisional Scottish Air Force has just dropped a depth charge.
    (Yep, I think it's a bird in flight in the foreground.)

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
  4. Geordie Sceptic16 March 2014 04:25

    So it's blurred, implying plenty of movement, yet the water immediately around the object is totally unaffected. At first viewing it immediately looks like an object in the air much nearer to the camera than the distant water.
    I'd say it's a bird. A bird would also explain why the bottom half is pretty solid (body) and the top half is blurred (moving wings).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chasing Leviathan16 March 2014 13:29

    Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. A cormorant, possibly?

    It has to be said, looking at the Mountain photo, might a bird passing in front of the lens be a possible explanation for this one too? Although I don't know how easy it would be to just snap a picture with the cameras Mountain provided his watchers with. Does anyone have any information on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cameras were simple box cameras, probably a Kodak Box Brownie or something similar. If so, the shutter speed would have been 1/40 to 1/50 second. Since most large birds seem to fly at about 30 mph this would give a motion blur of the order of a foot. I'm not sure if that is consistent with the photo.

      Delete
    2. I don't know what sort of bird. Larger wingspan than a cormorant? The thing I don't understand is the page was refreshing every three to five seconds (I got the last image ten seconds later because I had to quickly paste the screencap into my image software), and before that, I saw no signs of a bird but there did appear to be disturbances in the water, I should have shown a photo of the disturbances on the water too, looking back on it now. But I agree, could definitely be a bird. But I am inclined to agree with David Evans here on the fact that the Mountain photo is not a bird. To me that is definitely something rising out of the water.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2014 05:21

      Luke, sorry I don't buy it that the water was disturbed. It's a bird in the air.

      Delete
    4. I respect that, Geordie. The water was *to an extent* disturbed before I took this picture, which is why I was taking screencaps in the first place. I have 12 in total from that day on my computer, so at the time, I must have surely thought I had seen something.

      However, upon taking a good look at the earlier captures I mention, I can see what appear to be Peahens or some kind of species of game bird in the actual barn area, that are not there in the final pictures including with the object in question!

      So in saying that, I would now definitely say what I got on cam was one of those birds. I am glad it has been identified. I still spend quite a lot of time now on the webcam because it is my only connection, if you will, to being able to see Loch Ness in real time. So although this has been explained, I cross my fingers that at some point in the future, if I keep holding "vigil" like this, I will be able to capture something that truly can't be explained from that webcam, or better yet, get myself up to Scotland some day and actually be able to see the Loch in all dimensions, which has been my dream since I was just a tot.

      Regards and thank you everybody for your help in concluding what the object in my picture is.

      Luke

      Delete
  6. Shades of the Jennifer Bruce photo here, I don't think that looks like a bird.

    Insect looks more plausible to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm so it mightn't be a bird. On second thought, can Peahens (which look like what are the birds in the barn in my previous pictures I took that day which I am looking back on now) really fly up that high if not going to land somewhere very near? Insect I personally would have agreed with more, especially at first, as the shape and fluttering of wings to create a blur at the top like that would indicate very fast fluttering as would be expected of an insect. Well either way, I agree that it is very likely something in the air and not in the water.

      Delete
  7. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2014 11:00

    Jennifer Bruce object to me probably isn't a flying bird. This is very different and I remain convinced it is a flying bird. Can't think of any insect which looks anything like that.
    Either way, it's not something on the water

    ReplyDelete
  8. Strange one this. It looks like a bird but when zoomed up it doesnt look like a bird but more like a shape on the water .....hmmmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2014 23:15

      Well Jake, you're very much in the minority if you think it looks at all like something on the water. Let's for a second imagine it is - what on earth could it be, with a solid base and blurred top part? A swimming dragon with flapping wings maybe?

      Take a look at the above comments. The object is moving, yet thevwater is totally undisturbed. Huge clue screaming at you there.

      Delete
    2. That observation is truly interesting Jake. I too did not think for one second at first what I was seeing was a bird. I thought it was on the water and thought later if it was truly on the water that maybe it was a product of the wind. Then I thought, if in the air, it was an insect as has also been proposed and I could definitely agree with. Looking back on earlier captures from that day, I can see what look like Peahens in the paddock and yesterday thought "Ah, there is the culprit", but they are much smaller than this and much lighter than this and I was not sure Peahens could fly that high or soar like that would have to be doing if it was a bird, ten seconds later there is also no sign of a bird anywhere in the trees or in the paddock again so it's not one of those Peahens. I also do not think a soaring bird flapping it's wings would cause the blurriness at the top of the object, only very small wings would cause that, like in an insect.

      The first opinion I got of the picture was from a friend of mine in California, I showed him that one picture with the object in question and asked what he thought it was and he said "Is it an oil spill?" - he didn't for one second think it was something in the air, and he has a very good eye. Of course we know very well it was not an oil spill but I am simply saying how the first person I showed it to thought it was something on the water. I have seen birds fly on that cam all the time and I can tell when they are in the air as opposed to when I am seeing something on the water.

      The only thing that has thrown me off before in thinking it was on the water is if it was an object *very* close to the camera, like an insect, which is almost like an old "special effects filter", for instance in the original King Kong where I believe I read they placed painted filters on the cameras that somehow cleverly made it look like the jungle was behind the people/objects in the scene being filmed, in other words, an impressive trick of the eye. Insects close to the camera produce this same effect. It has to be very close to the camera.

      So I have nailed it down to two possibilities in my mind. It is an insect close to the camera, or it is some sort of wind effect on the water (it was Winter and beginning to rain so that could make sense). If it was a product of the wind that would also explain why there is no water disturbance ten seconds later or surrounding it. I have seen very dark shapes in the water similar to this on that cam before that have turned out to be wind, sometimes you can see the dark shapes spread out all over that area of the Loch.

      When I first saw it I was excited had one thought, "Nessie", of course. Then when doubts came in the first explanation I gave myself was that it was wind on the water, then the next explanation I gave myself was that it was a fly or insect of sorts very close to the lens which Glasgow Boy sort of confirmed in my mind when he first mentioned it. After all these comments including from my own father on Facebook saying it was a bird, I sort of persuaded myself to think it was one of the barn's birds but now I really don't think so. So I guess that means I am back to the two explanations I gave myself from day one of what it was (apart from the wishful thinking that it was Nessie), so back to square one really, ha. I will see if I can do anything to the picture to enhance it as much as I can in a few different ways to see if I can shed any more light on the subject, because I'd really like to know what this is because right now, I am quite confused.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 14:21

      The power of GB eh? One small comment from him that it's not a bird, and you're suddenly swayed! Wow.

      Delete
    4. If only I had that power over you!

      Delete
    5. Geordie Sceptic19 March 2014 06:42

      I think you're secretly pleased you don't. You're clearly a clever chap, so I suspect you want a sceptic or 2 here to keep things honest. Hey, I might even be you secretly posting as an alternative profile, GB :-)

      Delete
  9. According to geordie im in a minority lol. It does look like a line on the water when zoomed up but could be anything. Interestingly lots of eye witnesses say when they see things it sinks slowly without a ripple on the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is true that the creature has the ability to sink vertically. But if this was spray being thrown up by the creature, I would probably expect to see more - assuming the webcam resolution would show that finer detail.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 14:22

      GB, what creature?

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 22:06

      Biology does not recognise the existence of such a creature, so you'd do well to write posts using language implying LNMs are accepted as real. "The creature has the ability" is a bold statement when no such creature is known to exist.

      Delete
    4. Does anyone remember "macros" from the early days of word processing? Perhaps for Geordie's sake we should all program our keyboards to automatically insert:

      "That-possible-unidentified-and-theoretical-aquatic-animal-hypothetically-specific-to-Loch-Ness-in-Scotland-maybe-a-few-other-places-religion-unknown-as-yet-unrecognized-by-biological-science-but-possibly-real-although-also-possibly-something-else-and-maybe-it-eats-spam-and-sometimes-is-referred-to-as "

      in front of the word "Nessie" whenever it gets used here?

      Did I miss anything?

      Delete
    5. "Biology does not recognise the existence of such a creature, so you'd do well to write posts using language implying LNMs are accepted as real. "The creature has the ability" is a bold statement when no such creature is known to exist."

      No.

      Delete
    6. Geordie Sceptic19 March 2014 06:07

      I meant to write "you'd do well NOT to write"

      Delete
    7. Still "No".

      I will follow in the traditon of such writers as Tim Dinsdale, Ted Holiday, etc.

      Delete
    8. Geordie Sceptic19 March 2014 06:38

      Neither of those 2 ever got even close to proving anything. Aim higher, GB!!

      Delete
    9. Well, I would dredge the loch from top to bottoma and put down a few depth charges to force the monster to the surface.

      But:

      a) I can't afford it.

      b) The local Highland Council would not allow it.

      Delete
    10. Geordie Sceptic19 March 2014 07:02

      Fair point Mr Plambeck. I guess it would be a bit of a pain to qualify every mention of "the creature". I think I might balance things out by referring to "the nothing" !!!

      Delete
    11. Depth charges! And risk harming or killing a Nessie! Perish the thought. I'm surprised at you GB.

      Delete
    12. Well, only little depth charges. ....

      Delete
    13. Geordie Sceptic19 March 2014 14:12

      Maybe he secretly knows nothing would be hurt ;-)

      Delete
  10. I have done a few image enhancements as I said I would and have come to a new idea that it could possibly be a particle of some kind blowing past the lens.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 10:13

    Good grief, we're now in the realms of suggesting it's a creature on the water throwing up a black spray, having zero effect on the water around it, then suddenly submerging without any disturbance left 10 seconds after this photo was taken?
    I certainly can't fault you guys in terms of your imaginations!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yup, it’s an insect. If the photographer consciously knew he was snapping something in the water, then there would be no question about something anomalous in the water. An insect flitting by can be there one moment and out of the picture in one second or less.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lol a proper bite haha

    ReplyDelete
  14. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 11:41

    Jake, I'm glad you were just joking on this occasion. Some of the nonsense people believe is even more blatantly a known phenomenon than this photo. Seeing posts saying Bright's wave is a monster makes me think there are no limits to what people will believe when they want to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 11:48

      Though hang on a moment Jake - I see from another page that you believe the loch in inhabited by large reptiles! I'm the one who is giggling now :-D

      Delete
  15. Geordie i agree on the wave photos and lots of photos as a matter of fact. But ive seen a few that are worthy of consideration but they get ignored. I have a video on my phone to shich there is a photo of same object in a booklet but nobody mentions it but they put ridiculous obvious wave photos on and debate them! Unbelivable

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2014 22:01

      We'd need to be able to see the video to comment. I've seem one video recently which really interested me, even as a sceptic. On the other hand, I despair when believers get excited over such obvious everyday objects in photos. It's almost like "If there's any ambiguity at all in the photo let's call it Nessie"

      Delete
    2. Well, Geordie, what we have here is a webcam capture, the webcam captures a still image every few seconds, there is no video. As for what it is, I think it speaks wonders of what an absolutely incredible place Loch Ness is that anything a person cannot ultimately identify in a picture taken there has the possibility with believers that it is Nessie, while if I had taken this picture on the shores of a beach about half an hour's drive from me nobody would think anything of it. Or would they? Haha.

      I am not sure what is in this picture. I personally have never seen a bird unless I really force my perspective. I do see a possible insect. I do see a possible particle of some kind. And if it were on the water, I do see it could be a product of the wind. But I think it is very likely something very close to the lens.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic19 March 2014 12:59

      Does it speak volumes for what an incredible place Loch Ness is..... or does it tell us more about the frailty of the human mind? Once a myth starts, it self-perpetuates.

      Delete
    4. Well, I for one don't believe Nessie is a myth. :) And I think most people would be very glad to say Loch Ness is an incredible place, Nessie or no Nessie.

      Delete
    5. Geordie Sceptic20 March 2014 14:21

      Agree it's an incredible place, but I think you were referring to incredible in terms of its reputation for being the home of monsters, therefore causing debates like this one.

      It's an incredible place, but not the home to incredible monsters, sadly.

      Delete
    6. Stop gaslighting ms. Skeptic,its unbecoming.now back to work and finish your shift.

      Delete
    7. Geordie Sceptic22 March 2014 15:03

      If you have something useful to add to the debate, please go ahead.

      Delete
  16. It's a bird. If it were any other webcam in any other location it wouldn't even be a matter for debate. It's a bird,

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's a bird. If it were any other webcam in any other location then it wouldn't even be a matter for debate. It's a bird.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes i do geordie. That doesnt mean to say i fall for any photos and i agree that most are not even worthy of debate. Though i believe in these creatures and yes i think they could be reptiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 March 2014 05:05

      Reptiles based on what? Have you thought hard about this, taking into account the temperatures of Loch Ness?

      Delete
  19. Yes geordie. Have you ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 March 2014 07:17

      I'll ask you again - reptiles based on what?

      I don't think you've considered it carefully. Nearly all Nessie believers who have looked into the options of what could be there have ruled out reptiles due to the very low temperatures of L Ness. Reptiles are cold blooded and could not survive.

      Delete
  20. All nessie believers ???? So your saying reptiles cannot survive in the cold?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 March 2014 08:06

      OK, third attempt - reptiles based on what? Please do yourself a favour and answer, otherwise it will appear you've just randomly chosen reptiles.

      Read the whole sentence. I said "Nearly all Nessie believers who have looked into the options. .."

      Correct, reptiles could not survive L Ness temperatures.

      Delete
  21. Before we go further id like to add i respect everyones views and opinions and its great to debate without belittling people and patronisig them like some do ee EKM ! Busy at the mo geordie i will answer ur question later on what my reotile views are based on .

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cant we get rid of the troll on here or at least stop feeding it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My thoughts on reptiles are based on i believe im these creatures.i spend lots of times in loch ness and know countless people who have seen them including a good friends who gets sonar contacts off his vessel. My theory is these things must be either fish amphibians or reptiles. I rule out mammals because they need to breathe regular. Lots of reptiles have adapted to hold their breath for long periods and some even can hold it through their skin. Then i consider the eye witness accounts to be more animal like than fish, even the movements. Therefore i think these creatures are either reptiles or amphibians. Hope that answers your question geordie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, perhaps you could gather your experiences and stories into one place sometime for us to read?

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic23 March 2014 10:58

      Jake I get why you rule out mammals, but you still haven't dealt with the issue of reptiles being unable to survive in very cold waters. This is the main problem at LN - the factors such as not air breathing and very cold water point to neither mammals nor reptiles.
      If the troll comment is directed at me, I can only assume that anonymous poster is uncomfortable having their thoughts challenged. If you look at the definition of an internet troll, I don't fit it. A troll anonymously posts rude comments, such as calling other people trolls when they are simply debating. .

      Delete
  24. Im in loch ness on sunday GB so hopefully i will have something to report. However people who believe reptiles cannot live in the cold are seriously misguided. Yes lots cant but lots can and we have a number of past or present reotiles which have prooved this. Some are masters of this no more than the turtle. some turtles who can keep there body temperature above the coldness of the water

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 March 2014 11:11

      I'd disagree, but it would be interesting to research into whether any reptile globally does survive in waters that cold (consistently 4 degrees apart from at the surface I think, might be wrong though). Jake, what underwater breathing mechanism do you imagine your reptiles to use?

      Delete
  25. There could be a number of ways geordie. Maybe they are nocturnal or active at night and sleep during the day therefore holding their breath for long hours like some turtles. Maybe they only need to breathe occasionally and could even touch the surface without bin spotted. If they have a neck this is possible if going upwards.interstingly i find 80% of credible sightings are early morning or evening time which could support my nocturnal theory. In other ways perhaps they could hold oxygen in their skin like some sea snakes or even adapted to breathing through their skin for long periods.maybe they could switch off for long hours without the need to breathe oxygen. There is a turtle that even hibernates under water ! Who knows? Anything is possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 March 2014 13:17

      I'd agree that "anything is possible" if we give ourselves free rein and feel it's ok to dream up the most fantastical creature which bears no biological resemblance to any living animal or anything in fossil records. For me it's only logical to assume any creature in L Ness must have close anatomical similarities to a known animal. The loch has not been been in existence long enough for a radically different animal to come into existence, and besides - if you argue that it has, then you also need to accept that its ancestor 12000 years ago was an ocean animal from that time, so you'd need to identify that creature which was apparently able to survive and breed. And I am not sure why that animal would need to radically evolve in the years since. Why for example would a LNM need to remain hidden when breathing on the surface? What natural selection process would cause that? What is the driver towards nocturnal behaviour in a light-starved loch?
      All interesting stuff to ponder, and I hope GB explores it in an article.

      Delete
  26. Why not nocturnal? Its a 50 / 50 chance wether the loch is dark or not. And nobody knows how creatures from the past behaved or lived. If we only had fossils of turtles we wudnt know theyy could hibernate underwater for 4 months or that sea snakes could generate oxygen in their skin !!! Truth is we dont know. And yes the creatures of loch ness could adapt to live in the cold dark loch in a short space of time. And geordie u say it would be interesting to see globally if any reptiles live in the cold??? Well look no further than your doorstep because we have terrapins living in ponds and lakes all over the UK. The same terrapins when bought in the 80' s u were told had to be kept in warm temoeratures. But thousands of them are surviving in waters all over UK which are freezing in winter. And they were thrown in over 30 years ago as unwanted pets after the ninja turtle craze. You say reptiles cant live in the cold????? Well they can......and they are !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some reptiles have the equivalent of anti-freeze in their blood. The can hibernate surrounded by frost - just above survival limits.

      I have also dug up lizards in my garden, they just burrow to escape the cold!

      Delete
  27. The terrapins are proof. Im not saying the ness creatures are reptiles i just think they could be. You asked me how they breathe and how they can live in the cold so i just answered it. And fossil records mean nothing as the colecanth and the megamouth shark have prooven. Plenty of new things are bin found to this day. You tell me reptiles cant survive in loch ness but i say they can.... terrapins are living in a council lake by me which is freezing in the winter. And food for thought I have spent the last 30 years fishing the very lake on a regular basis and didnt know these terrapins were in there until a mate caught one 2 years ago. It is estimated that there are 30 plus of them in there but never in 30 years did i know it .prooving they are living and breathing right under my nose without me seeing them!! And its only a lake approx 300 yards by 100 !!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. So GB do u think reptiles can live in the ness? I know you favour the ampbibian but do you think its possible for reptiles to survive in the cold ness ?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, though some sightings of creatures doing 30+ mph would be dubious if such a thing was true. Neither is it required that such creatures must adapt to the cold of Loch Ness in 10,000 years. It is not difficult to speculate that some reptiles adapted to the ice age that engufled northern europe for geological time spans. As the ice receded, some retreated to the northern lakes of Scotland and Scandanavia with adaptions already in place. Do not underestimate life.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 00:05

      Interesting comments. Glad to have helped stir up some interesting debate. This is what it's all about - backing up theories with explanations. Terrapins - I hadn't really considered how they have adapted to freezing ponds, good point.
      I'd still like to see a proposal of what GB thinks an LNM could be, because I've never seen a feasible theory anywhere.
      And I still do not understand why a large creature with no predators for at least 12000 years would be so scared of surfacing, if that's what you propose. Not one case in 12000 years of a LNM being attacked by anything. I think "fear of surfacing" is a concocted justification for "lack of video evidence". (and yes Jake, terrapins do surface quite often!)

      Delete
  29. Yes i agree. But 30mph is only peoples guess. I think its hard to judge how fast something is moving. And the best videos i have seen the object in question seems to be moving slowly ! I think a reptile or amphibian is the most plausible answe but we cant rule out a big fish! I hope to get a new story or 2 off the locals on my visit next week as i know for a fact a lot of sightings dont get reported. I have friends who have seen things over the last few years who havnt offically reported it. I will forward any stories on my return.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your right geordie they do but funnily enough hours of fishing on the lake and ive never seen them . Just a thougt !! . Perhaps these creatures are like some turtles who can hold their breath for long periods. Intersting i was in the local zoo the other day and i eas watching some turtles in a tank and they only came to the surface to breathe, they had no need to surface apart from this and were 1oo% at home in the water. Maybe the creatures of the ness are the same. Why surface?? Also in the zoo was a salamander, obviously brreathing through the skin cos it never surfaced once so prooving some creatures have no need to surface. If the ness creatures are in there then maybe they have got used to the dark conditions and dont like surfacing, plus all the boat traffic would put them off. How many fish do we see surfacing ??? Hardly any, because they dont need too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 04:01

      So we agree the Dinsdale film only shows a boat?

      Delete
    2. Funny that you mention turtles. When you look at the evolution that occurred in certain theropods to the birds of today and you imagine the evolution of ancient marine reptiles from the Cretaceous period to the modern day, you would have a creature not entirely recognisable as a plesiosaur or elasmosaur or whatever. I would propose, for a plesiosaur-like creature to be alive today, which I do not think at all is the case, but this is just a "what if" for the sake of it, I believe they would not exactly appear physically how they did all those millions of years ago other than the bare necessities as in a neck with a head at the end of it, flippers or appendages of some kind, and a tail. We already know from the appearance of polycotylidae, the necks would now be short with the heads elongated instead, so there goes long-neck Nessie. In my opinion we would also be dealing with something the size of a turtle for all we know - not much of a monster.

      As for behaviour etc. you are right, Jake, in the fact, we don't know. Paleontologists just don't know everything for a fact, they do make a lot of assumptions as to how much they surfaced, how long they could hold their breath for and the like, but I would still say they know an awful lot more than some would give them credit for. They know these animals gave birth to live young so you would never see one beaching itself to lay an egg, which is one thing that could be used to support the Loch Ness plesiosaur theory. However, paleontologists also happen to have noted from the bones of these animals strong signs of decompression sickness and that very rapid ascension and surfacing, as the LNM has been described endlessly as doing, caused some physical damage to a notable degree, and I would assume by now, if an evolved living colony existed, they would no longer be descending so deep that they have to ascend so rapidly for a breath of air - I simply think they wouldn't dive as deep, which throws this LNM "candidate" right out the window for me. Also, if a cold-blooded plesiosaur in an evolved form was still cruising around the world's waters, they'd be encountered all the time in very tropical type climates and shallower waters such as the Great Barrier Reef. You will see modern marine reptiles such as turtles and sea snakes and even the odd saltwater crocodile at the GBR area and will encounter marine reptiles at nearly any other similar area that is well suited and preferred by marine reptile life, but no (sober) snorkelers or divers have encountered any form that could be described as a living remnant of plesiosaurs. And I am not saying they would be in these warmer waters because they would be incapable of living in cold water, plesiosaur fossils are found all over the globe, all I am saying is that if there are plesiosaurs dwelling in Loch Ness and other lochs in Scotland, Irish loughs, English lakes and many other various lakes, coastlines and other bodies of colder water in Europe and North America, why they're not seen cruising all the time around the warmer and clearer waters of South Africa or the Cayman Islands or the Great Barrier Reef etc. at all. That really seals the deal for me that these majestic creatures of the past are truly extinct. I've pondered the idea of living plesiosaurs since I was just a little kid. I love the water and am very passionate about marine reptiles and their conservation. Plesiosaurs are sadly gone forever. As for any other undiscovered marine reptile, large or small, I just don't think they would have gone undiscovered in Loch Ness or would be there to begin with.

      Delete
  31. Well funnily enough i asked the zoo keeper if the salamander ever came to the top. He daid very rare but once or twice he came to the top and swam along with his back slightly out if the water. He said i dont know why though !! Think theres the answer geordie. Nobody knows anything really. And like i said if turtles and sea snakes were extinct we wudnt know that they cud do the things they can and even one turtle stores oxygen in its backside!!!! People say nessie cant be this or cant be that but truth is we dont know.people say they cant be reptiles cus its too cold then they said the same thing that terrapins cudnt live outdoors in freezing winters.we just dont know geordie

    ReplyDelete
  32. I believe we have only discovered a fraction of fossils.we are still finding new ones every day. And maybe we have unidentified creatures in our oceans as the colecanth and the megamouth shark have prooved. Maybe there is a type of unshelled turtle around today we havnt discovered. Maybe some creatures have bin wiped out to near extinction apart from the odd place. Why are komodo dragons only in one are and not many left. Gorillas, scottish wildcsts and plenty more have survived in only certain areas and in small numbers. Maybe the nessies lived in the north sea only, what about the greenland shark ??? What sbout the new species of fish washed up in tsunami?? And plenty of species of animal have baffled science such as the platypus and komoodo dragon giving birth without a male !

    ReplyDelete
  33. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 12:10

    How do you guys deal with the total lack of any corpses, or even bits of rotten tissue? Ok so I guess the first thing you'll suggest is that they sink when they die and remain sunk, but what about nothing ever being seen on the bottom? Rhines spent a couple of weeks with a sonar scouring the bottom of the loch and found nothing. The population size of any animal species cannot be just a handful, otherwise negative mutations plus inbreeding lead to extinction. Yet no corpses to be found. Eels would break down soft tissue, but bones or dense cartilage would be preserved for a long time in those near zero temperatures.
    Or have you also thought of a far-fetched but vaguely possible justification for no corpses too?
    Taken as a whole there's just one extremely unlikely explanation after another, when it comes to all the facets of this story. I may write out them all sometime and you'll see that far too many things have to be "explained away" for Nessie to be real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny you should say that, I am currently typing out part 1 on such a subject. None of what you say above is of any concern to the monster theory, but I suspect you will disagree.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 12:24

      Of course all of the above is totally relevant... but conveniently ignored.
      The monster theory is only a theory. In the eyes of science there is absolutely no monster at all. Don't forget that.

      Delete
  34. Have you been to loch ness geordie? If you have then you should know its not possible to search the whole loch bed in 2 weeks !!!!! ! And what about the side walls and overhangs ?? And yes a body would stop on the bottom and not come up and after a while would bury in the silt. And underwater currents would move things about and probably push them into the side walls! In fact im sure people have dissapeared in loch ness and never come back up.remember the woman who fell off the burning boat??? I think rines concentrated one certain areas. In fact i was in loch ness last time he was there and he was constantly near the castle and in the bay areas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 14:00

      They swept the loch floor with sonar to locate any bumps which could be corpse-sized. You can cover huge areas in a short time like that.
      Yes I've been to LN several times. And I thought you'd come up with something like the corpses getting swept into corners where they can't be seen. Like I say - dozens of highly unrealistic excuses for everything from no videos to no corpses. Until you guys have proof, the only position science can take is that there's nothing there.

      Delete
  35. In the eyes of science the duck billed platypus couldnt be.....in the eyes of science the colecanth was extinct........in the eyes of science a komodo dragon couldnt reproduce on her own....and so on and so on

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 14:04

      And the big difference is..... we have specimens of the above, so we know they aren't fantasy! L Ness has yielded ZERO despite hunters' many decades of effort.

      Delete
  36. And u like the pun ' in the eyes of science' geordie . Well science will tell u a body several hundred feet will not come up because of the pressure. In fact rines did find one thing of interest but couldnt relocate it again. Why was that lying on the bottom???? Watever it was !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 March 2014 14:05

      It's not a pun.

      Delete
  37. But science has bin prooved wrong many times. And i think its wrong again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happened re the 12-foot object that looked like a decaying LNM corpse that was photographed on the bottom in 2002? Did that ever get followed up?
      And if possible corpses are rare, then I expect that Mr Plambeck will be able to point out that salamanders (for one) are quite capable of cannibalising their nearest and dearest.

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
    2. Hello G B,Jake and Geordie,
      Interesting discussion,the Frogs in my pond manage through the Winter when the pond is covered with ice and emerge quite happy in the spring.They seem to be quite bold during the breeding season and show themselves completely out of the water,especially when it is a warm sunny day (land sightings?).There is now a lot of Frogspawn in the water probably about a meter across.Have there ever been reports of Spawn like substances reported in Loch Ness?or do statistics show a change of behavior in Spring.I realize Loch Ness has a large surface area but the surface area of my pond is quite large compared to the creatures producing the Spawn.
      Jack.

      Delete
  38. I understand they tried to relocate the object when they came back again but couldnt find It. It had gone .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was Rhines falling into his old (and very unscientific) trap of arriving at the Loch with his narrative already decided, then finding the imagery to fit that narrative.

      You'd think he'd have learned.

      A wider shot of the 'carcass' showed the rig of the RUV from which the shot was taken. It gives a scale perspective that shows the 'carcass' to be inches long rather than feet long.

      Delete
  39. It's hard to take that webcam shot even remotely seriously. It's so obviously something flying at speed past the lens. The focus difference between the object and the water backdrop simply doesn't match. It's clearly either a bird or an insect depending upon what the range is.

    ReplyDelete