Sunday, 9 November 2014

New Nessie Video



Monster fever mounts that little bit more as a new video purporting to be of Nessie appears in the Scottish Daily Record. It was taken by Richard Collis on Thursday, 6th November as he was motoring about a mile north of Fort Augustus. He caught sight of an unusual object 150-200 metres out in the loch and got out to take the mobile phone footage which you can see on the Record website. I post an image from that clip above.

I have not had much time to look at it at all, but it has the classic head-neck pose beloved of monster researchers. The object appears to rise and fall in the water. How much of that is due to increased wave action or the object itself, I am not sure, but it looks to me like part of it is due to the object moving and not the water. Whether the object itself is moving across the loch is hard to tell, but there is a branch in the foreground which can help further analysis. Certainly, at that distance out, the depth is easily 200 feet, so we would expect the object to be at the mercy of the rough waves - unless it had it own form of propulsion.

But what is it? Branch, bird, debris or monster. You decide!



POSTSCRIPT: I got an email from Jonathan Bright who was on site that week who took the image below while he was there.



He adds the following:

I have seen this during my investigation of the Loch the previous week -on 6th afteroon to be exact, as I was coming back from a cruise from Fort Augustus- and as I have also said to the editor of the article, I can assure you that it's not the Loch Ness 'monster'. It looks like a tree log or branch, most possibly put there deliberately (it's just across the road from a lodge), either as a reference to the Surgeon photo, or, just a prank. (it would be interesting if it was not 'man caused' though)

We stopped and filmed this for sometime as an example of potential misidentifications...

It seems really strange that the photographer did not realize this, since the object was clearly fixed at this position and was not getting carried away by the waves and current but only moving up and down...


Steve Feltham also sent me this photo of the stick from the other side. It was taken by Marcus Atkinson from one of his cruise boats which comes out of Fort Augustus. You can see it to the right.




I would also note, against the backdrop of recent discussions about mobile phone evidence, how poor the quality of the image is. In fact, too poor to make informed judgements. The photographs are better but a video with the crispness of such pictures is always better.

From the Daily Record:

TREE planter Richard Collis captured this amazing video on his iPhone after he spotted something unusual while driving alongside the loch last week.

AN Astonishing new video claiming to show the Loch Ness Monster has surfaced.
Tree planter Richard Collis captured this amazing video on his iPhone after he spotted something unusual while driving alongside the loch last week.

He said: " I was travelling along the side of Loch Ness, saw something out the corner of my eye, pulled over and went down to the Loch and took some photographs.            
“As I was watching, I was thinking what the hell is that!    
         
“The loch was quite rough and I wanted to get as best a picture that I could possibly get because I knew it wasn’t going to last forever.

“It was about roughly 150-200 metres out in the water on a stretch about a mile from Fort Augustus heading towards Invermoriston.          
  
“It’s quite difficult to know how long it lasted but it felt like a couple of minutes.”
The footage Richard shot was filmed last Thursday and appears to show a creature swimming through the choppy water.

The photographs taken last week look eerily similar to the famous Surgeons photograph of Nessie which was later exposed as a hoax in 1993.

Richard, 58, was so shocked by what he saw he immediately called his wife Vibeke.

He said: "She thought I was having a joke and I said ‘No no, I’ve got mobile phone footage of it’ then when she saw it she said that’s strange.

“It’s similar to the Surgeons photo, that’s what I thought was weird. To me it looks like a long neck and a small head. Like a serpent - the old highland name of it was sea serpent or water horse.            
“What do I make of it? I just think it’s an anomaly that I can’t really explain. I’m a bit of a doubter of a lot of things until I see it myself and I wouldn’t have believed what I saw if someone else was telling me.            

“I’ve fished the loch man and boy and I haven’t ever seen anything like that. As I say I don’t really believe in anything like that until I see it but what I saw was obviously what the Loch Ness Monster is - I’m not saying it was a fire breathing dragon and I never saw teeth or anything like that, but I must have thought there was something there if I stopped to take pictures.

“It’s like seeing a UFO or something like that. I’ve seen what potentially could be the Loch Ness Monster. I’m excited about seeing it and I’d like to see it again.”       
     
Richard’s wife Vibeke, 60, added: “I’ve been here 37 years and my husband has been here his whole life, so we are completely aware of how unique this is.    

“I couldn’t believe it and laughed when he showed me because I knew he could never set that up. He’s not very technical or not very computer wise either.           

“I couldn’t believe it because when you live here everyone wants a shot, even if it’s a log, but the thing is it does not look like a log.            

“It’s definitely not a seal because it’s got a really long neck and it’s too round and smooth to be a log and why would it bob the way it does and then just go away.”      
      
She added: “I can’t believe that my husband managed to get this. It is amazing.”








71 comments:

  1. Any links to the video

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/video-could-loch-ness-monster-4596733

      Delete
  2. Another big point to the skeptics.

    A log bobs up and down in Loch Ness. People go beserk and declare it to be a monster. Never mind the fact that the part of the log which resembles the fabled "head and neck" never bends nor straghtens, nor does its angle to the water alter.

    Yet along comes J Bright who saw the same thing, knew it was a log and photographed it. Case closed. But if Bright hadn't been there, Roland and friends would eternally hold this silly video clip up as "EVIDENCE NESSIE EXISTS". Perhaps you might now concede the point skeptics keep bringing up - the Loch Ness Monster legend repeatedly tricks people into seeing normal objects as monsters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me, where do I state in that article that this is a video of the Loch Ness Monster? I refer to it as the "object". I had contacted Mr. Collis for further details just as Jonathan was contacting me.

      It seems you are the one seeing things that are not there rather than us.

      Delete
    2. "it looks to me like part of it is due to the object moving and not the water". - Usual wishful thinking.

      You called your article "New Nessie Video" (!!!)

      Delete
    3. Another desperate attempt from the sceptics to get mileage out of this. I was attempting to establish if there was vertical movement associated with the object, but with no certainty. That doesn't mean its a monster, but rather an attempt to establish a fact. Get real.

      All my titles go along those lines, read the body of the main article for the gist of what I am saying. You can now go and bother some other forum!

      Delete
    4. Desperate sceptics or otherwise, what you have to accept here GB is that you saw something that wasn't there, i.e. you saw independent movement from the object, when in fact it was just the waves. This does show how the loch affects perception. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this viewing could easily have turned into a report of a head and neck sighting, with the eyewitness insisting that the "animal" moved up and down independently of wave motion. Agreed?

      Delete
    5. Why don't you read what I am saying instead of putting points scoring first?

      "I was attempting to establish if there was vertical movement associated with the object, but with no certainty. That doesn't mean its a monster, but rather an attempt to establish a fact."

      Nowhere in the post do I say this is a video of the Loch Ness Monster. A fact you conveniently ignore.

      I was in the process of contacting Mr. Collis, to ask some deeper questions about this video. The one question that is vital is whether the object submerged. If it just stayed there, then when assessing the balance of answers, that counts against his story. So there is no presumption that this would somehow join the "pantheon" of sightings, as much as that suits your agenda.

      Delete
    6. GB, I am not "point scoring" any more than you are. You previously challenged sceptics to provide evidence of the effect of the loch's reputation on the way people view common objects. I believe we have an example right here, and I believe you even proved you are susceptible yourself to this phenomenon. It's not point scoring, it's an attempt to get to the bottom of the loch ness mystery. Our goals are much the same.

      I note two things about the phone recording: firstly no reported "shock and awe" was experienced (in fact the filming was very steady), and secondly the resulting images are definitely clear enough for useful examination. It seems that phones are of use at LN.

      Delete
    7. "Derek Dior" Do you have some problem with tourism? People make a living and visitors have fun.

      Delete
    8. I was "susceptible" in the sense that I deemed it worthy of further investigation. No commitment to Nessies without further satisfactory answers from Mr. Collis.

      The video is quite shaky IMO, hard to see detail. IThe stills are better.

      Delete
  3. I'm pretty sure I saw this object the other day as I was driving. The location fits, but it's closer to the shore than mentioned in the article - I reckon less than 100m.

    As mentioned, it's in the water opposite the lodge between Fort A and Invermorriston. It's did cause me to double-take, though even with only a fleeting look from the car I could tell it was inanimate.

    I might be driving that way later. If I am ill take a look and see if it's still there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I think the sceptics are getting more whipped up about this story than anyone else.

      Delete
  4. Mr Collis says that he "went down to the loch and took some photographs". Let's assume, then, that he was standing on the pebbly beach and therefore his camera was about 2 metres above water level. From the known field of view on an iPhone camera (about 55 degrees) I calculate that the object was about 16 metres away (not 150-200 metres as he thought) and the exposed part was about 70 cm long.

    Not sure what that tells us, except that it's hard to judge distances over water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I wonder how far Jonathan Bright judged his branch to be?

      Delete
    2. 16 metres is literally just 16 good paces! How could anyone possibly mistake 16 paces for 150-200 metres, even on water? If David's measurements are correct, I smell a rat. Something isn't right with this.

      Delete
    3. I'm afraid I have misled you all. I assumed that the still picture at the head of this article showed a full frame from the video. A second look at the video shows that it clearly doesn't. Measurements direct from the video give distances from about 50 to 200 metres depending on the frame (the variation is because the loch surface is not flat). Mea culpa.

      Delete
    4. Roland:

      Collis seems very sincere in his testimony. Had he not had access to his phone, and had Bright no offered his counter opinion that the object was inanimate, and all we had to go by was Collis' report -- you'd be arguing in defense of the man's ability to differentiate between an animal and a stick. Am I correct?

      Delete
    5. No, ekm, you are not correct because I would have contacted the eyewitness (as I have done with others in the past).

      I would asked some pertinent questions and made a more informed opinion based on this "new" data. In fact, I have emailed him, but no reply after some days.

      Try again.

      Delete
    6. So your rigorous, unbiased cross-examination would be on the same level as those interviews you conducted in person with Greta Finlay, correct?

      Delete
    7. I didn't conduct any interviews with Greta Finlay.

      Delete
    8. I know. That was sort of my point.

      Delete
    9. I sometimes use sarcasm as a means of showing discrepancy, contradiction, and fallacious reasoning, since the traditional methods -- i.e. clear expression -- often fails.

      Delete
  5. Well i did take a spin past the site this afternoon, but it was such a foggy day that visibility was down to a few feet, so no chance of confirming if this object was still where i think i saw it.

    My fleeting glimpse ties in very closely with what Jonathan Bright has said, and the dates match too. So i'm pretty sure i saw the same thing Jonathan did. Did we both see the same thing Richard Collis saw? I think so, but his video does seem to show an object much further out in the loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, well, if Mr. Collis would care to visit this blog based on the email I sent him, we might get somewhere. However, unless his video shows the object bending, moving around or submerging, rather than fxixed throughout the clip, I will assume his silence is not golden.

      Delete
  6. Been reading bits on here for a bit but never commented ,theres great info on this blog about loch ness monster im a firm believer in the monster. keep up the good work Glasgow Boy .I cant understand all these people on here leaving coments that they think monster is a joke and mock people that do believe if u not interested and think its a joke why bother with the subject in first place??????. All these people look up these 6 eye witness sightings u may think again. 1. police officer Ian Cameron and Willaim Fraser in 1965 . 2 Alistair and Sue Boyd in 1979 . 3 Tim dinsdale 1960 . 4 Val moffat 1990. all very credible people imo. Ian Cameron is the best and clearest sighting ever i think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to see you back here, "Pottsy" ;-)

      Delete
  7. It's going to take a lot of work, frame by frame enhancement and analysis, to determine if the object flexes, bends, or changes shape at any points. If Richard Collis can report he saw the object submerge, that work would definitely be worth pursuing. What strikes me though is that he's a local with 50+ years experience fishing on the Loch, so he must have observed countless floating logs. Yet something about this seemed different to him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i have sent a text to marcus atkinson, he skippers the tour boats out of fort augustus, and therefore passes this spot several times a day.
    i asked him if there is a neck like object sticking up out of the water somewhere near Port Clair?
    he replied, "yes there is, i will try to get a shot of it in a bit if i remember".
    That should end the debate on this one i suspect.
    in richards defence, he came round to see me just now, he is quite calm about it, he is not saying its a monster, he is saying he is mystified as to what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve. This should back up what Jonathan Bright sent me.

      Delete
  9. Well surely anybody taking that video would know if it dissapeared or not. If you thought it was a monster u would stay until it went. In this case it didnt. Another case of an attempted hoax for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, maybe. The chap says he's lived by the loch for decades, fished it and is mystified by this object. Unless he has more footage of it doing animate things, it should be obvious what it is after some time of observation.

      Delete
  10. Ok, Marcus has sent me two photos of this object that's been floating around in the area of Port Claire. In his pictures, taken from the Royal Scot tour boat the stick is just west of the house at Port Claire, so if anyone wants to go and photograph it it will be easy to find. One photo shows the houses boat house and the other shows vehicles on the A82, including a Fort William to Inverness bus, so it should be quite easy for anyone who likes working out sizes of objects on water to calculate the piece of woods size.... And actually get it right.
    As I have no idea how to upload photos onto this site I will email them straight to you Glasgow boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve. I will put them up here for comparison.

      Delete
  11. ..... Also, I had a map out this morning with Richard Collis, and off of Port Claire is exactly where he shot his film. Then the object was much further out, but if you look at the trees behind his object there is a slight drift to the west, then Brights picture a bit later has it nearer to shore, and now it's come to rest where it is.
    Two weeks ago we had a massive flood, Dores beach disappeared for a few days. Every burn and river coming into the Loch burst it's banks. One he'll of a lot of wood got washed into the Loch. Because this flood did not coincide with high winds the driftwood did not get thrown up onto Dores beach as it normally does,, it has all remained out in the water, eventually coming to rest against the shores around the Loch.
    I hope this explanation doesn't make you think that I am in any way a sceptic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a sceptic, Steve. Just another level headed believer. :)

      Delete
    2. Having met Steve a few times (yes Steve, we've met, but not for a while) and exchanged emails with him, I can confirm he is more analytical than most believers. Now, if we can just get him over the line, he'll free himself from this monster lark and enjoy the scenery up there for what it really is. :-)

      Delete
    3. He can do both geordie :)

      Delete
  12. Alrite lads ! Yes i think now we can see why there was no shock and awe in the video that geordir mentioned. It is very calmly taken !!!!! The filmer must of known what it teally was lol....i agree with the above......100% hoax !!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jake. Dick R sent me the photo which goes with the v-wake video, so I have finally seen them both now.

      Delete
  13. Lookingat the Daily Records posting of the video just now i notice that it is far poorer quality than the original. In Richards version, still on his phone, you can make out individual trees on the far shore, and thus work out that it is moving west. On the copy you cant see any of that. So it is not an automatic assumption that moble phones dont cut it, its the reproducing that is somewhat lacking.
    not that it matters now in this instance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, so the curse of the old photos revisits the modern mobile phone - blown up, shaky images which are harder to interpret.

      Delete
  14. Geordie are u sure its right photo? DR hadnt seen it last time i spoke to him? I told him which booklet so maybe he found it! What do u think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dick says it is. It's definitely the same kind of wake as the video. The object looks almost like a huge black swan with a hump and its neck close to the water, heading to the right. The far side of the loch with trees etc is visible.

      My thoughts? Ok I will try to be objective and not take a sceptical stance. Firstly, if it's the only photo, that raises a red flag. If you saw something like that you'd fire away with your camera and take loads (assuming as we are here that the shock and awe myth didn't occur, because this photo and the video were taken). I note also that the photo captures a much wider field of view than the video.

      As for the object itself - I have to say something doesn't look right. Firstly it looks exactly like the Surgeon's photo object would look if it was swimming, but worse than that is the sheer blackness of the object compared to other parts of the photo which should also be black (the shaded areas in the distant trees). Not one other part of the photo is as pitch black as the object. On top of that, the object has a very different photographic grain structure to the rest of the photo.

      My strong feeling is that it's a hoax, using photo editing software. It would be interesting to get it analysed by an expert. In fairness I can see why the photo with the video piqued your interest, Jake. It's certainly worth looking at further.

      Delete
  15. Im quite sure the AAS would not be involved in a hoax! I believe the video was 30 odd seconds long. Ur right geordie be good to have further investigation cos not many sightings have a photo and a video to go with it. Im not sure but i believe they wer both taken by diffrent parties...one further up the hill ( but i cant be sure).. You see this is what im getting at, we go over the same old photos and vids and talk about obviuous wakes and hoaxes yet when decent evidence comes up its ignored! Dick hasnt mentioned a hoax he seems to think its a duck but i think wake is too powerful plus theres no duck in the photo. I think its intresting.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I would also note, against the backdrop of recent discussions about mobile phone evidence, how poor the quality of the image is. In fact, too poor to make informed judgements. The photographs are better but a video with the crispness of such pictures is always better."

    The point continues to be missed. The argument is not, nor has it ever been, the cell phone video is the be-all, end-all; rather, that with immediate access to a recording device, no one in this day and age should be expecting their uncorroborated testimony to be sufficient. In other words, it's not 1933 anymore!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is not missed, and I refer readers to previous articles and comments on thsi subject. I don't have time to retype old discussions.

      Delete
    2. No one is asking you to. I'm pointing out what you're typing in NEW discussions.

      Delete
    3. What do you define as "new" which has not been discussed before?

      Delete
    4. Read the quoted selection I posted above. You continue to misunderstand the skeptical argument despite protests to the contrary.

      The argument is: cell phone cameras should mean MORE Nessie videos -- not necessarily BETTER videos.

      Delete
    5. I had to check whether I was imagining things and had not written on these matters. I had and have come to the conclusion that it is not so much that a case has not been answered but rather a case has not been answered to YOUR satisfaction.

      A completely different thing.

      Now, I do not have the time or inclination to go over "old ground". Yet if I allow such comments without answering, newcomers may think I cannot answer these things.

      What is the answer to these interminible repetitive posts? Delete!

      Delete
  17. Have to say I agree with EKM on his posts since he returned a few days ago.

    I think GB takes the "It's Nessie until proven otherwise" approach to the vast majority of eyewitness reports. I also feel everyone reading this will at least inwardly agree that this log video would have grown in stature if no one else had seen and verified that it was a log.

    I have also had very polite posts not published here. I somehow don't think GB would tolerate being paid by a secret mind-controlling organisation to post his blog, yet this is the offensive twaddle those of us who prefer science to myth have to put up with. I recently posted asking EKM to email me, but that didn't pass the GB controls. I'll try again - EKM, could you email me please. I posted my email address on an older article here, i think it was the one about GB's recent Loch Ness trip.

    By the way, this terrible quality phone video just happens to be significantly sharper than any other "Nessie video" (or film). Phones are - like EKM says - not the ultimate image capturing devices, but without doubt useful enough to back up or refute modern day vivid sightings. The video here shows beyond doubt that if humps and/or a head and neck was in view you could capture something on a phone to back up your report. It's simply beyond doubt now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GS agreeing with EKM? There's a shock!

      It may have grown in stature with some, but not all.

      Polite posts do not guarantee getting published.

      No diubt mobile phone cameras can record a decent quality image of a neck and two humps. Once again, this was all discussed in previous posts and comments.




      Delete
    2. Typo from me - I meant "tolerate being accused of being paid"

      Delete
    3. Thanks, GS. I knew I was one of several folks here having their posts withheld. I had often considered asking for you to contact me, but figured my request would end up floating in limbo. So in the event that Roland opts to publish this, my email is ekmyers@gmail.com.

      Roland: this page has the potential for wonderful debate and discussion. However, so long as you choose to censor those who challenge your assertions, whilst simultaneously allowing childish name-calling and paranoid rambling a from anonymous supporters of your cause, this site will never be taken seriously as a legitimate haven for genuine analysis. I'm sure you don't care ("It's my site and I'll run it as I please!"), but if that's the case, your pride is at odds with your mission.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps you two can now go off and create your own anti-Nessie blog!

      I refer you to my previous comments about repetitive comments.

      Delete
    5. Ekm moans about name calling : im quite sure i saw him calling someone a Gonad in another site: great loch ness monster debate i think it was. Glass houses and stones eh glasgow boy lmao

      Delete
    6. Well, now I see why the conspiracy theorists feel at home on this blog! Big Brother is watching, indeed.

      Delete
    7. Glasgow boy's blog, the great debate, lake monsters facebook, EKM is obsessed with Nessie. Strange 4 someone who claims not 2 believe. The plot thickens: he spends more time talking about Nessie than the believers do !

      Delete
    8. Should I have deleted this comment, EKM?

      Delete
  18. Think there is a big diffrence filming something unknown to filming something known. Im certain the filmer in this video knew it was a log he was filming so therefore no shock and awe or adrenalin you would surely have if u thought u were filming the legendry nessie!!!!! And yes i agree that this film would have bin talked about for ages as maybe nessie if others hadnt said it was a log they had seen.... but that prooves nothing... yes a log in the water can look like nessie....and probably nessie could look like a log vice verca......if u know what i mean. :)))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Shock and awe syndrome" has been disproven by things like the Dinsdale film, the Raynor film, the AAS film. I agree it could occasionally prevent someone taking a photo or video during a very quick sighting, but anything longer than a few seconds and most would have their phones out getting footage. Ok I'm going over old ground here, but so was Jake.

      Delete
    2. Richard Collis had no idea what he was filming, Jake.

      "As i was watching, i was thinking what the hell is that?"

      Delete
    3. This is why I hesistate to post some comments because of misrepresentation. The Raynor and Dinsdale films were a great distance away, the original argument revovled around the "game changing" pictures that come at much closer distances.

      So the sceptics come back and rewrite comment history as if they had won it hands down in the first place.

      Should I assume you did this deliberately or out of ignorance? Don't bother replying as such comments will be deleted on the grounds of misrepresentation and time wasting.

      Delete
  19. Not old ground. Its in this forum. Wer talkin bout this film !! Its taken very calmly because he knows its a log. Im quite sure if i saw something in loch ness that i thought was nessie i wudnt be able to calmly video it as normal.in fact i know from experience i cudnt.....but thats a difrent story. :)))

    ReplyDelete
  20. So you're saying Richard is lying then Jake?

    If it's a straight up choice between Richard lying with his account, or the shock-and-awe theory not really holding water, i'm going with the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Of course trevor. Im quite sure nobody would walk away with nessies neck still sticking out of the water!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Considering the submitted and goading comments I am now seeing from both sides, I am closing comments for this article lest it gets out of hand.



    ReplyDelete
  23. I bet for a tree log

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why are people so sure of themselves that an object apparently looking like a long neck and small head sticking out from the water is indeed that?. We know pretty much nothing of what Nessie could be except ridiculous proposed identificatiions, ie sturgeon, otter and seal. The general, familiar image of Nessie comes from the famous surgeons photo, and for some reason, people have always assumed it is showing a creature with long neck and small head poking out from the water, and that its larger body is just below the surface. Why do people assume that shot shows a long neck and small head? Do we see any eyes and mouth? no. If we can consider for a minute that this is a completely unknown animal, the "neck and head" may not be that at all, it could an arm, tentacle or leg. To me, the video above doesn't look like a long neck and head of a plesiosaur or sea serpent like animal. If the video is of a real creature and isn't the long neck of the animal, then we are seeing a truly bizarre creature or creatures.

    ReplyDelete