Tuesday, 10 May 2016

New Picture of Nessie?

Gary Campbell, on his register of Loch Ness Monster sightings publishes a photograph taken on May 1st this year by a tourist. The account runs thusly:

1 May 2016 - a visitor from Texas took pictures of a dark creature just under the surface following the boat she was on. The sighting was at approximately 1330 hours and lasted 30 seconds. She said that she initially thought it was a shadow but then realised that there was nothing behind her that could cause such a reflection.




Now I must admit, I am struggling to see what is in the picture. I can see a shadowy form, but it is too inconclusive to form an opinion. Others may be able to see something I cannot.

By the way, congratulations to Gary Campbell on the 20th anniversary of his sightings register. That milestone is covered in a Daily Record article today. Gary had his own sighting of something like a "mini-whale" with a "black shiny back". Clearly he thought it was no seal (which always seem to turn up at Loch Ness when an explanation is required), and this prompted him to start his register.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

21 comments:

  1. Perhaps boat was leaking a little oil slick.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not an oil slick, there is no rainbow. I thought it would have darkened the white water if it had been an above water shadow, and this only happens in one small area, and an area outside of the 'shadow' also. This gives me the impression that it is under water, but it seems much too straight to be a critter. I did one particular enhancement on your web JPEG, which is tiny, and can see a semi circle around a third of the way from the bottom, in the middle of the view. This could be wave motion, but there is no comparable wave motion in the shot. The semi circle does not make a complete intersection with our dark straight line, but nearly does. It's hard to know if these items are related, and hard to enhance a darker blue upon dark blue. If it is a shadow of the boat, the sun must have been pretty high up, and the front of the boat was maybe rounded?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, this is the problem between what people see and what the camera records. I have seen various things I wanted to photograph for whatever reason, but the image on the camera just did not do justice to what I saw with the eye.

    I am not talking about the camera failing to pick up illusions, just ordinary things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, it's a 2D representation of a 3D scene and is only as good as the camera and photographer operating the camera. The boat for a sense of scale would have helped, but this is knowledge that a more trained operator might have. Funny thing is, if it had been me, I'm sure I would have had my big lens on, which would have been pretty useless on such a close object! Carry 2 cameras maybe?!

      Delete
  4. Seems a bit straight edged and angular to me, neither of which are common to the natural world. It does look shadowy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apologies for repeated commenting, but I showed this to my son, who has an eye for detail, and he suggested that we were looking at the side of a boat due to the wave motion, and that it is not likely to be a shadow caused by the sun as the light seems to be pointing from the upper area in the photo and not behind the photographer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah, I can see it better now rather than when I was in a brightly lit conservatory ...

    Hmmm, well, one should look at some jacobite cruiser or other boat picture to see how any of their higher structures reflect on the water.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Need I mention that the Loch Ness Monsters are said to be rather shy and don't like loud noise? Now one is following in the prop wash of a large boat?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "a visitor from Texas took pictures of a dark creature just under the surface"

    Is the witness claiming it to be a "creature" or was that added as an assumption??? If so, why does she think it is a "creature"???? What did it do other than appear like a dark object that would prompt one to assume it was a "creature"? There is not enough information by the witness. Who's the bonehead who interviewed her and took her statement?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It sure looks like a shadow. You might even say it could be the shadow of the picture taker him or herself..... that is if the sun was at their back...HOWEVER...

    It doesn't look light the sun is out because of the lack of really bright specular highlights on the water. It could be pre-dawn or after sunset. Also, if the sun was out, the light reflecting off the water suggests it would've been in front of the picture taker rather than from behind therefore making a shadow impossible.

    HOWEVER.... not knowing the exact light conditions of that moment, I'd still say it's a shadow. ;-D

    Jon from long island, ny

    ReplyDelete
  10. On further reflection (pun intended), my american brain didn't register the '1330 hours'... which is 1:30pm, correct?
    So now I'm thinking that if the sun was at the persons back, a mild overcast would be enough to cast a shadow, albeit not a very strong one, and kill specular highlighting.
    So, yeah, it's still a shadow. :-)

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now we just need the boat's direction of travel at the time.

      Delete
    2. Is that info possible to get, GB?

      Even more so, that thing looks exactly like the shape of a person who'd be taking a photo. You can almost make out the head and a bit of elbow on the right jutting out just like the body position one would be in holding a camera.

      Jon

      Delete
  11. In my opinion this is nothing more than a 2D shadow on the surface. If the darker part was actually a 3D submerged object, then the straight edge on the right would show variation in tone, due to curvature. As it is, the dark portion end abruptly and uniformly, which verifies the shadow on the surface hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have sent an email to Gary Campbell.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Hello Natasha,

      I will delete the offending comment. As you can see, such debates can often take the wrong turn.

      Delete
  13. Replies
    1. I apologize Natasha. :-)

      Jon

      Delete
  14. Might I suggest that the 'shadowy' area to the left of the picture is actually the normal light and the lighter area to the right is actually the anomaly?

    ReplyDelete