Tuesday 17 March 2015

The Latest Nessie Video

Perhaps.

The Daily Record is running a video taken at 1:30pm on the 10th March by tourists at Urquhart Castle which appears to show a hump in the act of submerging and leaving a circular water disturbance behind it. The pictures were taken alongside the video which you can view at the link above. 

However, the witnesses state that "We were so mesmerised, we didn't immediately think of taking pictures although we had the cameras in our hands". It seems that good old "shock and awe" kicked in, but they did get the aftermath of whatever the large object was. Was it our favourite cryptid briefly surfacing or something else? Reasonable comments are welcomed.

The main question is what is the dark object in the centre which is apparently causing the water disturbance?

POSTSCRIPT: I note one Loch Ness researcher has this to say:

".. video of bubbles close to Urquhart Castle jetty at the time and date that divers were recording Google Earth underwater footage - pretty hard to miss the support boats"
The first problem with this opinion is that the video does not show bubbles. It shows a circular disturbance of water. I think this opinion is reading too much into the video. The dome like object in the photograph looks an unlikely candidate for a bubble and, of course, is not in the plural ("bubbles") as suggested. As for the Google Earth team and support boats, that must be some diver to produce a bubble that size!






THOUSANDS of tourists flock to Loch Ness every year hoping to see the elusive monster - or even better - get a photograph of it.

So when a black hump emerged from the dark waters of Britain's biggest loch, as Connie Ross and her daughter Reyshell Avellanoza were taking pictures, the opportunity was too good to miss.
But the pair were so mesmerised for those vital few seconds, their chance of capturing a rare close-up image of the Nessie phenomenon, was gone.

Instead, they filmed the aftermath as the mysterious object sank to just below the surface and moved away into the loch, leaving behind a perfect circle of disturbed water.

It was 29 year old Reyshell's first visit to Scotland, having flown over from the Philipines with her five year old daughter, Heather Elizabeth, to visit her stepfather, 73 year old retired architect Campbell Ross and her mother and Campbell's wife, Consuela (50).

No trip to the Highlands would be complete without a tour of Urquhart Castle and the chance to see the loch's shy occupant.

Connie said: "Campbell drove us down to the loch last Tuesday. He stayed in the car park, and my daughter and granddaughter walked down to go round the Castle and then take pictures by the loch-side.

"It was about 1.30pm in the afternoon and I had my still camera. Reyshell had her tablet and we were taking pictures when Heather pointed out something in the water.

"She said it looked like a big black belly. We looked and could see this big disturbance quite a way out and this big black object in the middle of it.

"We were so mesmerised, we didn't immediately think of taking pictures although we had the cameras in our hands.

"By the time we realised what we were seeing and began filming and snapping away, the object had sank virtually out of sight and moved away further into the loch, leaving behind a perfect circle of water - like a whirlpool.

"I took still photographs and Reyshell used her zoom as well to try and get a closer look, but it wasn't as good as what we saw with our eyes.

"One of my pictures shows a dark object behind the circle of water and that was it moving away.
"We were all quite excited by it. I have always been a believer in the monster and for my family to see it was amazing. If we had been a little quicker with our cameras, we would have better images."

Former Inshore Lifeboat chairman Campbell, who lives in Oldtown Place, Inverness added: "I had been countless times to the loch and didn't bother walking down with them.

"I wish I had not stayed in the car park now. I am also a believer that a strange creature inhabits the loch, but what it is, I haven't a clue.

"However I saw something similar about 30 years ago, a few miles away at the Lochend part. I was driving back to town and a bus-full of tourists had stopped in the lay-by looking at something.

"There was a streak in the water caused by a black hump which we could see in the distance. The first thing my stepdaughter and granddaughter said when they got back to the car park was: 'We've seen the monster, we've seen the monster.'

"There was so much excitement and having seen the video and photographs, it certainly is very unusual and caused by some animate object.

"But until someone gets better visual proof, the mystery will live on."



 The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com






156 comments:

  1. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 09:17

    Congratulations on calling this article "The latest video from Loch Ness", rather than "The latest Loch Ness Monster video".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry, I reserve the right to change the title.

      Delete
    2. How about commenting on the images rather than the title?

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 09:48

      Ok. Nice pictures of rippling water.

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 11:32

      Ah you changed it. The cult of Branch Rolandian drives forth....

      Delete
    5. This is a very interesting site that I have just come across. Good work. :)

      Delete
  2. Jake, weren't you up there at the time?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes thats the day i arrived GB. nessie must have known i was coming :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like it. It's better than the Bright wave, so that's progress.

    Wasn't there a similar video recorded in Urquhart Bay last summer (or maybe further back), from higher elevation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder if Dick Raynor will come in with his circling RIB boat argument again?

    For those who don't know, one of the cruise operators runs a fast boat to the castle and may do a circle before heading back.

    Not that I think this is that, I am not even sure if they are in season yet, but I am sure this explanation will make GS happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 11:23

      GB, all I see are photos of ripples. I don't see any monster. The eyewitness accounts don't make these ripples more monsterlike. Nor do these photos enhance the eyewitness accounts.

      For me, there is no need for Dick Raynor to mention a circling boat. After over 80 years of this stuff I can't imagine anyone getting excited over a photo of rippling water. Perhaps I am wrong and some will though.

      Delete
  6. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 11:35

    It must kill you that this is the kind of morsel your Nessie love will have to live on for the rest of your days, GB. Photos of ripples. Oh dear me. All these decades on and we just have ripples to post up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not the best photo from the past 80 years. I've learned long ago that the Monster rarely ventures near the surface.

      Pity the ladies, like many others, got caught out by the old shock and awe. I think your tune would have changed if they had not delayed filming. But then again, I presume you regard their description of a "big, black belly" as an irrelevant fantasy?

      One wonders how they got so "mesmerised" over what you describe as "ripples"?

      Delete
    2. Simple answer: they were at Loch Ness. Of course they were transfixed.

      Delete
    3. I go to Loch Ness and I don't get "transfixed". A superfluous comment which makes me wonder who you are.

      Delete
    4. Xavier J Popodopalis Jr20 March 2015 at 08:52

      Agreed Glasgow Boy. Far too many anonymous posters chipping in on both sides.

      Delete
  7. I was there on the 10th till 14th didnt see any ribs out at all. The ones in fort augustus were not in operation and still arnt.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 13:09

    I also wish they had filmed from the start. Then they would have been able to watch the video back and realised it was no monster. These glorious reports only ever occur when there is nothing to cure their confusion afterwards. Assuming, that is, they haven't just made it up for fun and publicity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, it goes on the record as a potential sighting, but I wish people would just start filming rather than gawp at big, black humps in the water.

    Usual snide, unproductive comments removed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cant you be a bit more constructive Geordie Sceptic? Instead of trying 2 get one over on Roland cant you maybe tell us what you think is causing the ripples? Or maybe we should wait for the expert opinion of Dick Raynor or Adrian Shine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 14:17

      Wait for their opinions if you prefer. My opinion is that we're looking at photos of ripples, that's all I can say. There are some who would look at a photo of thin air and insist it was a Bigfoot fart.

      Delete
    2. 100% somthing under loch surface not just ripples or boats boat wakes or weather. I've been to the loch a number of time done loads of hours watching . U don't get an incident like this unless it's made by somthing alive I tell ya. Deffo a sighting imo. Very interesting video/ photos

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 23:38

      Chris Potts, on what evidence do you base your 100% certainty?

      Delete
    4. From what I see and how the ripples form ! And From over 25 years of Loch Ness experience and studying the subject and actually visiting the loch itself with load of hours watching and fishing all over country. imo I think it's An Animate object in the video its somthing making the ripples from undersurface. Have u ever been to Loch Ness Geordie?

      Delete
  11. 100% something under loch surface not just ripples or boats boat wakes or weather. I've been to loch a number of times done loads of hours watching . You don't get an incident like this unless somthings alive under the surface making it I tell ya. Deffo a sighting imo. Very interesting video / photos

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cant you be a bit more constructive Geordie Sceptic? Instead of trying 2 get one over on Roland cant you maybe tell us what you think is causing the ripples? Or maybe we should wait for the expert opinion of Dick Raynor or Adrian Shine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Burton Caruthers17 March 2015 at 14:42

    It's certainly interesting for the fact that whatever is causing the disturbance has it looking very different from the waves surrounding it.
    As for a black hump, I'm not seeing it. The "black hump" appears no darker or separate from the surrounding water. It looks like water.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I dont think anyone is getting too excited geordie!! But its certainly better than the last few vids and pics in my opinion! Seems to be summit there causin the ripples but wat or wat size i dont know. Certainly worthy of further investigation i feel :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic17 March 2015 at 23:36

      And how will this "further investigation" be conducted? I'm guessing it won't amount to anything more than asking the women to recount their story again?

      Delete
    2. well that would be a start geordie yes. Maybe we could then get an idea what the hump looked liked ie colour and size. Then get the film looked at by high tech equipment like other films of the past have.also check the webcams near the castle to see if anything has bin picked up.

      Delete
    3. Chasing Leviathan18 March 2015 at 14:06

      It would perhaps be useful if we could establish exactly where the camera operator was standing at the time the footage was recorded. That should help with establishing distance and scale.

      Delete
  15. “Shock and awe” wins by a nose, the “Loch Ness Hoodoo” comes in a close second!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may promote the "shock and awe" theory, but it is something I wish was not there as it has again denied us clearer pictures.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 03:13

      As has been stated on numerous occasions - the theory of shock and awe would appear realistic for a handful of very short sightings. Ones like this which are so short that the witnesses probably didn't have time to realise they were viewing a standing wave before it collapsed. Shock and awe is a useless theory for any sighting that lasts much more than 30 seconds though. It feels like a theory purely constructed to excuse the lack of footage.

      Delete
    3. I don't recall this being stated on "numerous occasions".

      Delete
    4. “Shock and awe” is not a new concept. In some accounts of sightings, going back many years, witnesses have stated that they were dumbfounded or stupefied by what they were seeing. Camera or no camera

      Delete
    5. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 08:56

      Agreed. For some very short sightings only.

      But this is the first time it has ever been described as happening to someone actually holding a camera.

      Delete
    6. So how did you come by your 30 second calculaiton above? What quantitative analysis led to that number?

      I have discussed cases before where people have froze and not made for their cameras. Alastair Boyd comes to mind, but you dismissed that on the flimsy grounds that he was of a "nervous" disposition!

      Delete
    7. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 09:32

      Alastair Boyd categorically did not have a camera IN his hand, GB. More of your "facts", eh?

      Delete
    8. No, no. I thought you would try to pull that, but I said "made for" not "in his hand". You are such a pedant, who cares whether the camera is in your hand or beside you?

      Here we are trying to discuss this picture and you are strafing again.

      Delete
  16. Michael Alberty17 March 2015 at 21:49

    Would that spot be w/in view of the nessie webcam?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's quite a BIG splash, we can tell that. It's too far out for someone to, say, have thrown a rock large enough that far. It's contained in the one area and spreading out concentrically in all directions, nothing like a wave that rolled in.

    The last two videos from Loch Ness were easily explained as mistakes, the floating stick that was confirmed to be a floating stick, and the waves rolling it at Fort Augustus which were so well filmed there can be no doubt they were just that, waves rolling in. This video is in a different category altogether, and worth getting excited about, as it represents a decidedly non-typical phenomenon, whatever the cause.

    So what was the big, round, black thing two witnesses saw taking the dive that caused all this?

    Carrying cameras and tablets will never be enough, because these inexplicable incidents are so transitory. Now a wirelesss sonar device you could immediately toss in the water with a peer-to-peer connection to an app in your phone or tablet, that might tell us something. Like the size and speed of the object moving away below surface -- in this case there almost certainly had to be one of some kind. It's hubris to say our technology has already caught up with the problem of Loch Ness and we should already have all the answers by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a pity somebody does not have a fixed sonar echoing out under the loch all the time. Boat sonars have their uses but they are obviously on the move which makes interpretation more difficult.

      Somebody elsewhere suggested a gas bubble but this is an unlikely explanation in an eutrophic lake plus it would have to be some size of gas bubble to achieve that effect!

      Delete
    2. Oops... "the waves rolling IT at Fort Augustus" should have read "the waves rolling IN at Fort Augustus". Especially because there wasn't any "it" in that video :)

      Delete
    3. Not surprised GB, a gas bubble is the best inanimate object to fit the description. But so unlikely here that an animate object would out rank it in the realm of possibilities.

      Earlier today I was envisioning mini-sonar units in place of webcams. Couldn't leave them running continuously though, as they might drive off anything they were meant to measure. Someone would have to activate one at need. The Loch has enough noise pollution as is.

      Delete
    4. I think it's a fairly quiet stretch of water, given it's size. Not sure about noise pollution, unless you mean the hum of the power station

      Delete
    5. trevorthecat - there is often a lot of noise underwater. On my website I have some recent hydrophone recordings - check out the "Silent World" clip at http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/messing.html

      Delete
  18. Talk of Adrian Shine and Dick Raynor above im suprised they have not given their opinion yet, strange. And Geordie Sceptic still has not given his constructive views on what is causing the ripples. I have 2 be honest i find it good when the so called expert sceptics are silenced. Proof is in the pudding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You won't hear from Adrian unless it is thru the media.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 09:14

      Yes I am silenced by the absolute evidence of a monster in these photos. :-)

      Delete
    3. You're pretty silent on engaging in the actual photo and loud on side debates.



      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 09:33

      Because the photos only show ripples.

      Delete
  19. So what do you think is causing the ripples Geordie Sceptic? Stop side stepping the question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agitation of some sort underwater will cause this kind of disturbance, just as the video shows, an up swelling of water breaking out into a bulge at the surface. I am a process/chemical engineer and where agitators are used in large vessels and holding tanks these are exactly the effects that are manifested. The impeller blades on the agitators cause currents that will always make their way upwards, no matter how they are mounted. If the impellors are deep enough the disturbance will have dissipated before reaching the surface but if they are relatively close to the surface the disturbance is quite pronounced. Could an animal with large flippers and powerful tail acting as propulsion have caused this? In my opinion it is highly possible. The collapse of a standing wave would not cause the up swelling of water that I believe we are seeing in the video, ie, the dark bulge in the middle of the so called ripples. A definite sighting for me chaps.

      Delete
    2. Sounds logical Pete, especially if some large animal went straight down into the depths, which if I remember reading somewhere, that right off Urquhart castle is one of the deepest areas of the loch with hardly any shelfing.

      Delete
    3. How on earth could this be a "definite sighting" for anyone looking at the photos and video? Respectfully that is just nonsensical! It's intriguing at best.

      Delete
    4. Yes, it's not a definite sighting. There is always consternation when "official" sightings are pronounced.

      Delete
  20. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 10:08

    My money would be on it being caused by converging small waves/wakes producing a standing wave. I know it happens in that area, and it is also known that standing waves can resemble dark humps.

    Of course this is just an educated guess, but it's several million times more likely than the explanation GB and fans would prefer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did I actually say I thought this was a Nessie? I am exploring what this image is saying.

      Ah, more quantitative analysis from GS. How did you arrive at "several million" in your grades of likeliness as opposed to "several hundred" or just "several". Again, you're beginning to swamp the comments section, I invite you to clear up your comments before I do.

      Delete
    2. I thought you said there was no humps Geordie Sceptic ?

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic18 March 2015 at 16:05

      You all keep asking me questions so I respond! Happy to make this my last post on this article.

      Roland, I was being generous when I said several million.

      Anonymous, the photos show only ripples. The ladies mentioned dark humps so I was offering an explanation.

      I will now leave this article to John Alvarado, Guam Plambeck and the rest of the flock.

      GS

      Delete
    4. Thanks Geordie, you've said enough! Save your strength for the next article.

      Delete
    5. Hard work being a sceptic. :)

      Delete
    6. You tell him, John A !!!

      Delete
  21. I'd say it definitely looks like some sort of water fauna has caused it. Question is what? Seal? Otter?

    I know, i know. But both known to frequent the loch, and both capable of causing that kind of water disturbance, so therefore neither can be dismissed as a candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. i arrived in ness on same day as this video was taken.nobody mentioned any seals about. And ive seen seals a lot on north wales coast and never seen them do that to the water! More chance of an otter out the two i reckon! Ive never seen an otter in loch ness but i know they are there. The lady who owned our cabin park told me to look out for them cus she had them coming on the park!! Didnt see them though but maybe our roaring fire and drunken songs put them off :))) Saying that the movement of water in the video is quite large so wud have to be a sizeable otter me thinks !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A diving seal could definitely leave that kind of impression on the surface. Whether or not there was one in the loch at the time i don't know, all i'm saying is it has to be considered a candidate.

      Delete
    2. Too big to be an otter. I think we all secretly agree it must have been a plesiosaur.

      Delete
  23. She said it looked like a big black belly.

    That reminds me of the photo on Steve Plambeck's blog of a Salamander floating belly up at the water surface.

    A black underbelly seems unlikely however.

    Jack.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Agreed it could have been a seal or otter, albeit the splash seems huge. Unlike the still shots the video has reference points, so measurement of the actual disturbance might be possible, and then compared to what the known species do. Could a small animal cause the size up that up swelling in the middle? We'll know if we can measure it.

    To my mind a standing wave shouldn't result in or transform into a big centralized splash that then radiates outward in concentric waves, with a marked up swelling in the middle. I think it safe to say we can forget about standing waves for once.

    Unless a catapult pitched a big stone to stage an elaborate hoax (see any catapults on the road Jake?) there's a live animal in this story, and the questions become how big and what kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are wrong Steve. Standing waves, especially ones where circular wakes converge, can cause quite startling and spectacular effects just like this. I should know, I did Wave Physics during my BSc!

      Kelvin C

      Delete
    2. I think describing the splash as 'huge' is over-egging things a touch. It doesn't seem *that* big a disturbance.

      Delete
  25. When i first got into the loch ness mystery i read that the so called experts always played down new footage or sightings but always avoided the ones that are not obvious wakes or debris. This is true to this case as the so called experts have kept very quiet. I am still waiting for the opinions of these people that the sceptics worship the ground they walk on. Im waiting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I am more waiting for information because again these low grade tourists video cameras don't give us enough resolution. I don't know if that was digital zoom, but it didn't help matters.

      The still camera was better, but people think multiplying low grade devices lots of time will result in high grade results. Nope, low grade times a million is still low grade.

      Delete
    2. I think the photos are very clear. The problem is they show nothing other than water. That is probably why the experts haven't commented. Imagine how busy they would be if they had to comment every time someone photographed a wave on Loch Ness.

      Delete
  26. I am reminded of one of the witnesses in the Jeremy Wade river monsters programme

    ReplyDelete
  27. not the same as ordinary waves though anon. Clearly you can see that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Standing waves never look normal to the untrained eye, anon. These photos and the accompanying video are completely within the bounds of feasible wake effects without the need for biological involvement. Whatever happened before the video is the question that cannot be answered analytically.

      Delete
    2. Hmmm, should we just trust you or ask for more information? Do you see a raised, uniform centre in the picture? What do you think it is?


      Delete
    3. The uniform centre is nothing out of the ordinary. I will try to upload some illustrative videos from my uni days. Essentially the standing wave builds while energy from surrounding water focuses inwards. Then when that energy dissipates sufficiently for the standing wave to drop, the water falls outwards, usually leaving a calm and sometimes raised area in the centre. The video and photos really do match up with this process. If I can upload examples somewhere online I will post a link.

      Delete
    4. Well, there's laboratories and there is Loch Ness. Experiments in controlled conditions don't always pan out the same in a natural environment.

      I don't see much evidence of waves of great note around this disturbance which could feed it.

      But, you're not excluding the theory that this disturbance could be caused by an independent object just under the surface?

      Note that does not imply a "monster" - just an object generating its own energy.



      .

      Delete
    5. By the time the standing wave collapses there is often nothing left of the wakes or waves which originally caused it. What we see here again fits in with that scenario.

      The wave experiments were conducted in both lab tanks and on real lakes. Ironically steep-sided bays have been used at times, so once again I say that the findings are wholly relevant in this case.

      I am in agreement with you that something underwater cannot be entirely ruled out, but as a scientist who has viewed countless wave formations, my belief is that the video and photos we see here show a standing wave in the process of collapse. I am offering my experienced opinion. I would hope you would value it.

      Delete
    6. Hi Kelvin. I, and I'm sure a few others await your posting of a link to back up your theory, but for me the video/photos are in no way the result of a standing wave but are highly indicative of some kind of impelling motion created by a physical object beneath the surface. Of course I can't prove it but having searched the web I can find nothing regarding standing waves that remotely resembles what was filmed here. What we have to take into consideration is the report by the witnesses. They saw a black hump emerge, watched it for a little too long before realising to film and photograph it and only caught the aftermath of the event, the propulsive turbulence, as the hump sank beneath the surface and moved off into the Loch. The main thing to me is that a hump was clearly seen at relatively close quarters as in some historic sightings that have been recorded.

      Delete
    7. Standing waves can look like humps. There's a clear example on a tourist video either from the 90s or early 2000s. The one with Urquhart Castle in view. That video shows what a standing wave can do.

      Delete
    8. Those are the standard standing waves of Loch Ness double takes which move across the field of view. This is not one of those.

      Delete
    9. This is a problem with so called scientific assessments of Loch Ness images. You have a theory to explain it. In terms of waves, you can make a theory and test it in your little wave machine udner controlled conditions.

      This cannot be done at Loch Ness. In fact, most theories posited cannot be tested at Loch Ness. This is to be expected, it would be a major effort. But to simply map lab conditions onto Loch Ness is not a given. Notwithstanding, the multiple known and unknown factors that could render the theory at best secondary should not be so readily discounted.

      In that light, to suggest an object just under the water is causing the water disturbance (whatever it may be), is entirely plausible and defensible.

      Delete
    10. I did explain in a post which hasn't appeared that experiments were also done in bays with steep sides. For some reason my post never appeared. Is there some editing rule on this website which stops some posts from appearing? I'm trying to work out why I am no longer allowed to contribute.

      Delete
    11. What do you mean by "bays with steep sides"? Do you mean natural bays or laboratory ones? What are the problems when you scale up to massive bodies of natural waters with a lot more influences?

      Got those video links yet?

      Delete
    12. Natural, real lakes were used as well as the lab.

      I'm working on the videos. It's proving trickier to convert them than I expected. And I'm also wondering whether it's worth doing it anyway. The people who frequent this site seem mostly hell-bent on viewing every water bulge and every swirl in Loch Ness as evidence for a monster. There's a feeling that no amount of evidence to the contrary could ever alter that.

      Delete
    13. Sounds like Geordie complaining.Kelvin please post your " standing wave" visual proof instead of expending energy on the lost comments conspiracy..:0)

      Delete
    14. Its a monster.you can see somthing black in the water.as for champ,well 5, FIVE,cinco people saw the snake like head ,big hump,and heard a high pitched noise before the animal submerged.it was 30 feet at least.
      Several researchers have recorded echilocation @ 144,000 hz,in 3 different locations,of 16 foot to 35 foot in size biological.
      Liz muggenthaller of fauna communications,for discovery channel.dennis hall and katy elizibeth,and audio interviews on rense WITH liz muggenthaller.sorry but your " standing wave" has no leg to ,ahem..stand on.

      Delete
    15. "I'm working on the videos. It's proving trickier to convert them than I expected. And I'm also wondering whether it's worth doing it anyway. The people who frequent this site seem mostly hell-bent on viewing every water bulge and every swirl in Loch Ness as evidence for a monster. There's a feeling that no amount of evidence to the contrary could ever alter that."

      Just show us the videos, thanks.

      Delete
    16. On their way.

      Delete
  28. Hello. d website but this ain't no monster!!! We have the same kind of mis-reading of water on Champlain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I havt seen any nessie believers get too excited bout this video...or even say its nessie!! Its the usual plant pots putting words in peoples mouths !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, I have deleted at least one comment acting as if we are all getting excited at Nessie - lying posts.

      We can discuss the alternatives and that *includes* the Loch Ness Monster. If it is the monster, if it is a wave, if it is a seal, if it is a gas bubble, ....

      Delete
    2. See Pete's comment above.

      Delete
  30. Exactly GB.! do u know if the web cams are getting checked? If its right these people think they saw a hump it would be worth checking them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The webcam doesn't record IIRC, so it would be down to someone taking a snapshot at the time.

      Delete
  31. Ah i see. Didnt know much bout the webcams to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "By the time the standing wave collapses there is often nothing left of the wakes or waves which originally caused it. What we see here again fits in with that scenario. . . . I am in agreement with you that something underwater cannot be entirely ruled out, but as a scientist who has viewed countless wave formations, my belief is that the video and photos we see here show a standing wave in the process of collapse. I am offering my experienced opinion. I would hope you would value it."

    The way Kelvin phrases this makes it seem that his specialized knowledge of waves gives him a unique advantage in determining what is more likely to be the case, and that the explanation involving a living creature emerging from under water is less scientific and therefore less likely.

    But even granting that standing waves under certain conditions can produce similar effects, there's no presumption that that would be the more likely explanation, or the more scientific explanation. If "something underwater" (e.g., an animal) had emerged at that point, would it have caused a significantly different effect in the water? If not, and keeping in mind also what the only witnesses are saying, then it's misleading to conclude that "something under water cannot be entirely ruled out".

    Even accepting and trusting Kelvin's expertise in waves, I could just as well, all things considered, lean toward the explanation involving a living creature, while granting that a standing wave cannot be entirely ruled out, and that assessment would not be any less "scientific".

    - Guam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guam, the standing wave hypothesis is considerably more likely than a monster, obviously. However, the seal/otter explanation ranks much higher in terms of probability. For myself, this is 99% caused by a standing wave. I did reply further to one of Glasgow Boy's posts about lab versus real life, but my post has not appeared for some reason.

      Delete
    2. Did you " name yourself" after the scientist Lord Kelvin?
      It seems to give your comments an " authorative" stance to the standing wave idea.
      Was this your intent?
      Btw gb,check out the boogyman show on ogopogo.its the best ive seen.(ogopogo on land!!)

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, you would need to ask my parents why I was named Kelvin. Neither of them are scientists so I think your theory is unlikely.

      Delete
  33. I see movement like this all the time when im carp fishing. I think this is a big fish though i say it must be a big fish and bigger than what you would think is in there. Interesting @

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've been carp fishing for 40 years at venues containing numerous 40 and 30 pounders and this does not resemble any underwater activity ive seen. I think its a surface wave effect.

    ReplyDelete
  35. All this talk about waves and wave interaction, subsurface agitation, ripples this or that, standing wave this or that. Nice suppositions and what ifs. We could debate this till the cows come home! Everybody is entitled to his/her two cents worth, and that's what this blog is all about. I guess the only ones that will ever know for sure are the two women that say they saw a “black hump” or “big black belly” as one of them whimsically put it, in the process of submerging. Here's my two cents, I believe the two women. Something made that circle of disturbance. I know, I know call me gullible! I wonder if the kid saw anything. Well, never mind, some wouldn't believe her either anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a bit strange to believe that of all the 1000+ witnesses, the sceptics do not believe any of them accurately described the object seen.

      Delete
    2. I think skeptics do believe that the eyewitnesses report what they think they saw. But the case is that if these 1000s of eyewitness reports were actually about large monsters then we would have a lot more than old photos of hay bales, toy submarines etc. The number of reports and the total lack of truly credible photos (and films) do not tally, for the average man in the street. My 2 cents.

      Delete
    3. That is not what I said. You added "think what they saw".

      This old chesnut. Now will you please tell us how many photos and films SHOULD have been taken. Please provide proof with calculations. Pulling numbers out of thin air or hunches does not count.

      Delete
  36. Its what i see all the time. It must be the bream then :-)

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'd love to hear more from the witnesses themselves and see if there were any HD still pictures taken at the time of this event. I'm struck by the way one of them seems to walk away from the turbulence in the water before it subsides. I'm with John Alvarado on the weight of the witnesses descriptions as critical to how one decides to see the film. More details of their experience (and a better sense of it's veracity) would be very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  38. And with the witnessss who dont report what they see u cud double that figure GB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, easily doubled IMO. But we can only go with what we have.

      Delete
    2. If only Mr. Ross had been with the women and not stayed in the car, he may have added a bit more credibility,as he had seen something similar before. Being an Architect, he would have had a sharp eye for detail and a trusted observer.

      Delete
    3. Don't you know, John? There is no such thing as a trusted observer in the sceptic world ... if they claim to see a monster.

      Delete
    4. I feel this is a lot of fuss about nothing. It's just a not very big disturbance caused by either waves or an otter. Its been blown out of proportion because of where it happened. In fact it makes us all realise how so many nessie sightings come about from very minor, normal events.

      Delete
    5. It's very strange that people are actually seeking to multiply the nu,ber of eyewitness reports based purely on a hunch. Yet when Anonymous above suggests that images should have been captured by now he is jumped on by Glasgow Boy with a request for stats and analysis behind his or her reasoning. By the same token, what does Glasgow Boy base the idea that many reports go unreported? How does he arrive at a figure of "easily doubled IMO"?

      I'll be interested to see if this post appears. It's not controversial, it's a simple question which has never been asked before.

      Delete
    6. One is allowed to speculate on the quantity of unreported sightings, but as I said in my comment, they don't form a part of any conclusion .. unlike the sceptics and photos.

      Delete
    7. Im a regular at loch ness and i speak to more people wbo have seen things and not reported them than i speak to people who have reported seeing things. Thats how i personally get my figures. In fact i wudnt say double i wud say nearer treble......in my experience :)

      Delete
    8. Steve Feltham's views on this would be intersting if he's looking in. Are there sightings going unreported, and if so what kind of volume are we talking about?

      My experience is different to yours Jake, but i admit it's probably something that you need to bring up in conversation to get a fair appraisal.

      Delete
    9. I wonder how many are winding Jake up. I would guess 4 out of every 5 he speaks to.

      Delete
    10. I class most as friends so i can safely say most or none at all are winding me up geronimo! :) and trevor i dont need to bring anything up, its their buisness if they dont report it. I was just responding to a question.

      Delete
    11. So you have loads of friends who have seen, but not photographed Nessie? Or are you also going to say they have shown you photos and you're sworn to secrecy? :-). :- ) :-)

      Delete
    12. Ive seen one photo yes :)))))) and as friends i am confident they tell the truth. And no i havnt been sworn to secrecy lol but its his photo not mine so its up to him wat he does with it

      Delete
    13. these sceptics are strangely very similar!!!!!!!! Lol all put words in my mouth!! I didnt say i had loads of friends who had seen nessie hmmmm

      Delete
    14. Trevorthecat steve has been at loch ness long enough 2 know that there are people who dont report sightings. I think mainly 4 fear of ridicule or they know folk will just say they were mistaken. And in fact im sure a lot of folk dont even know who steve is .

      Delete
    15. It was off a mobile phone! A long wake with an object at the front. Taken from high up on the south shore! yeah looked a good photo to me! Oh and it was taken by a firm non believer who seemed slightly embarrased by it lol

      Delete
    16. A non reported sighting is a non entity. Just doesn't enter any equation or data set. Believers saying there are loads of unreported sightings is about as insignificant as skeptics saying they're sure all of the people who say they've seen a monster have probably confessed to their nearest and dearest that they lied. Point I'm making is it's all pure speculation.

      Delete
    17. Not to me anon. Im interested in what they saw. and thats all that matteers to me !

      Delete
    18. Well Tim, i've lived at the side of the loch long enough to hold a different view.

      I've never bought into this oft-trotted-out claim that there are loads of local sightings going unreported, simply because i've never heard anything to support that, and i live here and so do a lot of my friends, family and acquaintances.

      The only local sightings im aware of are either the ones that have gone mainstream - John Rowe, Richard Collis, Marcus Atkinson to name 3 of the more recent ones - or tricks of the loch that people recognise as such and are able to explain away.

      However, and here's where my 'initiating the coversation' thing comes in for those who seems to have misunderstood, i accept it's something that needs to be brought up in conversation in order for an unreported sighting to be revealed. Unless you are known as an enthusiast of the subject or you bring the subject up, i can't see a circumstance where an unreported sighting is going to enter the conversation.

      That's why i'd be interested in Steve's view - he is a known enthusiast, so perhaps people will be more inclined to share with him. Maybe he can offer a different perspective than mine.

      Delete
    19. wer by the loch do u live trevor?

      Delete
    20. Well ive got friends in the area who have seen things and i know are not lying. Not loads but a few! You say its only important if its in the database but thats your choice not mine. Doesnt bother me if its in the database to be honest. i reaserch the mystery in my own little way with a bit of fun ( some are too serious) all i see in the database is old hat and bales of hay and toy submarines thsts bin discussed a million times! I prefer to listen to quiet people who dont seek attention to be honest, too many george edwards about lol. But each to their own i think trevor! All im doing is personally trying to find out if there is truth in large creatures in loch ness! One thing that keeps me going is people telling me they see things and people who have lived by the loch and not fooled by boat wakes etc! If they dont report it that is their buisness. I was shown a photo bout 5 year ago from a lad who was a non believer. I wish he wud of shown it to Steve Feltham cus i thought it was a good one ( and i disregard 90% of photos).but his photo...his choice!! Anyway ...the truth is out there :))

      Delete
    21. I live in Dores, 200 metres from the pub. I grew up in Fort Augustus though.

      I never mentioned a database! ha.

      Delete
    22. Ah mixed up lol sumone did. Thats nights for ya. fort augustus lovely place. Had some good nights there :)

      Delete
  39. I stand corrected on my earlier statement a standing wave could be ruled out in this particular case -- one must bow to superior experience such as Kelvin's and others. So a collapsing standing wave must also be considered a possible explanation for the photos and video, while at the same time not ruling out several other candidates. So if something exceptional was present, we have no way of proving or disproving it, and once again must rely on or dismiss witness testimony.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Guam, the standing wave hypothesis is considerably more likely than a monster, obviously. However, the seal/otter explanation ranks much higher in terms of probability. For myself, this is 99% caused by a standing wave."

    "Obviously"? What is or is not more likely cannot be determined in advance like you are doing. You introduce yourself as a scientist, but what you are saying when you are talking of probabilities is begging the question, not presenting a true scientific analysis of the evidence reported here. If there is an unknown animal in Loch Ness, then the standing wave hypothesis is not more likely at all.

    - Guam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, if there were an animal in Loch Ness with a penchant for imitating standing waves, then that would be a strong contender. Likewise if there were a poltergeist able to conjure up the same effect, that too would be a strong contender.

      However, neither an unknown animal, nor a poltergeist are likely to exist, therefore the wave is *obviously* a much more likely candidate. I am talking about in the real world rather than the alternative reality created on internet paranormal sites.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, now when you point us to the aforementioned videos demonstrating your hypothesis, we'll form a judgement.

      Delete
    3. Bravo Guam.A well analyzed response to the sponsered cutout " kelvin". Who

      Delete
  41. "Indeed, if there were an animal in Loch Ness with a penchant for imitating standing waves, then that would be a strong contender."

    I asked this before: If "something underwater" (e.g., an animal) had emerged at that point, would it have caused a significantly different effect in the water than a "standing wave"? How? You are the expert. Enlighten us. Speak. Show us. I hoped to hear how a competent assessment of the movement of the water in this video would rule out an emerging animal, or at least show it to be very unlikely, and all I heard instead is question-begging talk of probabilities that anybody without any degree in waves is capable of typing.

    "Likewise if there were a poltergeist able to conjure up the same effect, that too would be a strong contender."

    Well, many of us have seen animals emerging from water, and it seems to me that this sort of effect can well be conjured up in that way, which is more than wave scientists can say, apparently, which does not speak well of the state of education in wave science. I have not seen poltergeists in action in water, so I can't tell. However, if a poltergeist is responsible for doing this, or if a seclusive unknown animal is, by your methodology you will never find out the truth.

    "However, neither an unknown animal, nor a poltergeist are likely to exist, therefore the wave is *obviously* a much more likely candidate."

    That's begging the question. What is likely depends on what is the case. But what is the case is precisely the question being asked. How likely is it that a royal flush comes up from a deck of cards? Well, if the deck is stacked, it's not only quite likely, but may be unavoidable.

    Your scientific expertise has no role in what you are saying, and it gives no additional traction to your argument. And yet you come here and wave (heh!) the expertise around so as to elicit special attention to your comments. But that's an attention you have not deserved by anything you have written here, which makes me realize that this comment is already way longer than it needs to be.

    - Guam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, have your big Loch Ness Momster, Guam. You clearly won't be parted from it.

      Delete
    2. Kelvin,What kind of a standing wave would a 6 ton amphian,just submerging,under the water,make?
      Mr. Bigglesworth

      Delete
    3. Burton Caruthers2 April 2015 at 06:17

      Mr. Bigglesworth, the largest amphibian in existence is the Chinese giant salamander, weighing in at a maximum of 110 pounds and 5'9" long. What's the basis for your six-ton amphibian?

      Delete
    4. Maybe he has in mind Steve Plambeck's giant salamander?

      Delete
    5. Mr. Bigglesworth responds;Its amazing how Mr. Caruthers has done an inventory of all the salamanders of the world,known and unknown.truly monumental.Well done sir!

      Delete
    6. Hello Anonymous. Are you Mr. Bigglesworth? And if so, are you speaking in the 3rd person? Or are you responding on behalf Mr. Bigglesworth? Or lastly, is Mr. Bigglesworth your nom de guerre? Hey!are you Mr. Bigglesworth the cat? I loved you in Austin Powers! Just wondering.

      Delete
  42. Yes , what was the biggest lizard again before the komodo dragon was gound Mr Caruthers ?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have just watched a video of a hippo in the water going up and down. When it submerges it looks exactly like this video. Just a thought :-) Tim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any large animal could leave such a disturbance Tim. You're not suggesting Nessie is a hippo, I hope! ;-)

      Delete
  44. No John im just stating that the video looks like a large creature.

    ReplyDelete