Saturday, 16 August 2014

New Photograph of Nessie?

John Gillies, who was at Loch Ness at the same time as me last week, has put up an interesting picture of an object in the loch. It is a still from a piece of footage taken on the 11th August.


The brief clip, as far as I can tell, is not the footage that contains the subsequent still image. I do not think it is a bird as I see no body. Admittedly, a passing wave can temporarily obscure the body, but the surrounding waves do not look rough enough.

Perhaps a branch protruding from a horizontally floating tree trunk? Perhaps, but again the same argument applies to the missing bird body. John did not see it at the time of filming, so it is always worth reviewing images when one returns home.

Does it have Nessie potential? I would need to see the original film before making further comment.



19 comments:

  1. It would be nice, as always, to know the camera type, the zoom setting and the camera height above water. Lacking that, and comparing it to objects on the far bank, I can only guess that this is less than 2 feet high and therefore too slim to be a reasonable monster head and neck.

    Unless you happen to know the height of the road above the water at that point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't really say without seeing more of the original video.

      Delete
    2. While I don't think this shows much of anything, I do not see how something two feet high or less rules out a "monster" as D Evans puts it. If there is an unknown animal in Loch Ness I can assure you that they are not born full size, and I'd say around two feet of neck is just about right for an adolescent "monster"...

      Delete
  2. Hmmmm, as mentioned on the other thread there is a lot of wood debris in the water at the moment. This looks like that to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Gillies ? Enough said !

    ReplyDelete
  4. Swan or loon, it's too blurry to tell. Both birds can look like "serpents" at the right angle, when waves obscure their bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really? This is a serious discussion? There is no monster or animate object in the video or still.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the correct verdict is "D'ae ken / Not Proven"

    And if I'd been a humble technophobe (or inhabitant of these parts pre-Fleecebook) passing on the lochside then I'd probably have seen nothing and concluded that dead trees were extinct.

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
  7. Definitely looks like a cormorant. A very serpentine looking bird that does not have water repellant feathers like for example a duck. See this picture for something similiar to the video above: http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/51/b7/b6/bird-island-boat-tour.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  8. Geordie Sceptic26 August 2014 10:29

    Hello all. I have a couple of points to make here. The first relates to the above photo. The vertical object could easily be part of a submerged piece of tree. Do I also see a horizontal object bottom right in the photo? Not sure, but if -as has been stated - the loch was full of debris at this time, I think we have the obvious answer.

    Secondly, I've seen Richard's previous comment that sceptics add nothing to the conversation here and we're all closed minded. Additionally we are told we "p*ss in Glasgow Boy's punchbowl"

    I find these comments absurd. Niggling, antagonistic comments from sceptics are pointless, but well-reasoned arguments are surely essential to assite like this. A sceptical website would never try to censor out non-sceptical comments, but would relish the debate. Surely that's what it's all about?

    Furthermore, how do you define - and ban - scepticism? Would you ban those who think there's large fish in the loch? How about those who believe that something was in there but isnt now? How about those who believe Nessie is a paranormal entity? Plesiosaur versus amphibians - 2 views sceptical of eachother? And how about specifically sceptical comments from believers, such as Jake having the view that Bright's photo shows a wave? Should he not be allowed to say that, because it contradicts GB?

    In a way I actually DO believe in Nessie, but my view is that it's a sociological-psychological phenomenon, rather than a real animal. I believe this pretty strongly, and for me this doesn't make the subject any less interesting. In fact it may even be the most interesting interpretation of what's going on at Loch Ness. I do understand that some people are desperate for Nessie to be a real, living animal, but that belief should not close your minds to other possibilities.

    As for being closed-minded, I was once a firm believer in Nessie as a real unknown plesiosaur-like animal. Via extensive reading I concluded this was not the case. I am not a stubborn, dogmatic person, I have just reached a different conclusion to the ones GB and Richard arrived at.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To Geordie Skeptic...You fall into the 'niggling, antagonistic' category. Additionally, you apparently do not understand the concept of property and GB's right to censor any comment he sees fit regarding his property. You found my punchbowl comment so extreme that you could not find it in you to spell out the word 'piss.' What a sensitive snowflake. If you find that repellent, start your own skeptical blog on Nessie, rather than riding on GB's coattails. Your view that the LNM is a 'sociological-psychological phenomenon' is absurd. Everyone is out of step, except you, eh? In your small world, nobody has really seen Nessie; it's only their minds playing tricks. And YOU are going to be the one who points out how the trick is played? Hilarious and pompous at the same time. My view is the price of admission to this site is the belief that the LNM is biological, and is not a case of 'mental vapors', as you would have us believe. If you can't afford that small price, you aren't getting in for free.

    Regards,

    richard

    ReplyDelete
  10. Geordie Sceptic26 August 2014 16:17

    It seems to me that it's you who is trying to dictate the terms of GB's website,RiRichard. Most people seem to be able to handle having their monster challenged.

    The fact that the blog enables reader comments shows that GB wants people to post here. Perhaps you need to define, on GB's behalf, what we're allowed to post on here? Or maybe set up your own site instead?

    My admission fee, as you call it, is to point out alternative viewpoints in a polite manner. You should be able to handle that. I can handle your views on Loch Ness.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm a nessie believer but this richard dude is ranting. How does he think he decides who posts here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which comments are allowed or rejected normally runs along the lines of civility, relevance to the Nessie debate and non-repetitious questions.

      Delete
  12. I think the blog benefits hugely from some critical analysis of the material presented. It would be far less interesting if the sceptical viewpoint was removed.

    As long as everything's kept civil, i see no issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chasing Leviathan28 August 2014 12:50

    The sceptical viewpoint is crucial here, if for no other reason than that this is one of the few LNM sites I've found where it is openly and intelligently CHALLENGED. Are Monster believers so unsure of their arguments that they have to resort to censorship? Not GB thankfully, who argues his case convincingly and well in my opinion. I don't always agree with his conclusions any more than I always agree with the conclusions of GS, but the debate and discussion that ensues can help me perhaps come to conclusions of my own, and I'm very grateful to both of them for helping me to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree the skeptics shud be allowed their say ! Good to debate. Even though one described me as ' just a brickie ' !!! Lol a brickies eyes are as good as anyones lol !!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. It would be satisfying to see debates on the paranormal that were sober, restrained, well-reasoned, respectful, and truly open to the possible legitimacy of many points of view. Unfortunately, this is not often the case; rigidity is often more the rule than the exception.
    Fifteen years ago I wrote a book on the alien abduction phenomenon, in the course of which I tried show a striking resemblance between drawings abductees had made and scenes from SF and fantasy films from the 1950s. I had no luck in getting permission to include these drawings in my book. The reason? My study was basically skeptical of the literal reality of what the abductees were claiming. No open-mindedness there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you're free to comment here!

      Delete