Monday, 13 November 2017

Follow up to the 1975 Underwater Photos




The last article on the Rines photographs from 1975 certainly stirred up a discussion amongst people with myself tending to view them in a sceptical manner. However, Lake Champlain researcher, Scott Madris, posted a photograph which reminded me (once again) that the subject of the Loch Ness Monster is not the clear cut, objective process that we often try to make it out as.

Professor Roy Mackal, in his seminal book "The Monsters of Loch Ness", had discussed the "gargoyle" and "body" shots and concluded both were "positive evidence" for the cause. I have already stated my opinion on the gargoyle, but was more reticent on the body shot on the basis that the object looked too "white" for a Loch Ness Monster.

Scott posted a picture of an eel taking by the AAS equipment which is shown below. Now it goes without saying that eels at Loch Ness are not albino either, but this one is very white and that is down to the reflection of the lights on the camera rig.




Roy Mackal made this comment on the eel image in relation to the controversial body picture:

P 17. (Sec Chapter VII.) Aside from the identity of the animal, one of the most important questions regarding this photograph is the animal's size. Unfortunately, as was also the case with P 16. a precise site estimate cannot be made. However, some estimate can be made based on comparison with other photographs taken of known objects under the same conditions at comparable ranges. For example, the same strobe-camera rig took a picture of an eel (Illus. 9) at a range of 20 ft. (estimation by Rines and Wyckoff). The eel is probably 18 in. long (the most common size encountered in Loch Ness as determined by our eel studies: see Appendix G). On the basis of degree and character of the lighting. Wyckoff estimates the range in P 17 to be 25 ft. 'Therefore, a comparison between the two photos permits an independent size determination of the animal in P 17: head neck region about 71/2 ft. in length.

So, perhaps a dark object can be bleached into a far whiter object under a strobe flashlight and I should be more open to the Rines body picture. One question on my mind was the possible natural colour of the eel in said picture. Of course, that cannot be determined now as the European Eel can present several different aspects to that 1975 camera rig. A look at the Wikipedia page on this creature shows that it could present three shades to the camera.




From the picture above, you can see the general olive green colour of the creature. However, it can also presents a yellowish underside and when it is sexually mature, more silvered sides and a whitish belly. Which of those three colours was closest to that camera is not clear. However, it is clear that the luminance of the strobe does create a whitening effect.

Roy Mackal's point is that this whitening diminishes with distance allows an estimate to be made of the "body" giving a tentative 7.5 feet. I will come back to that number shortly because all this controversy about whether this image showed the Loch Ness Monster or nor prompted me to go back to the original sources and basically start again. That process begins here with Mackal's book.

I preferred as original as possible as reading recent accounts would be subject to 40 years of failing memories and hardening prejudices. To that end, I consulted the late great Tim Dinsdale who was there and had seen it all and participated in those AAS expeditions many years ago. What did he say in his books? The answer came in his last book, the 1982 edition of his most popular "Loch Ness Monster". In Appendix D, he says this seven years after those heady events:

I now hold the view that only one of these pictures is potentially interesting from a "monster intrusion" point of viewpoint. It is the single frame showing an apparent long-necked body ascending from below, photographed at a distance of about 25 feet and having a visible extent of some 20 feet.

Note he gives a different length estimate to that of Roy Mackal. The other pictures he says are subject to valid alternative explanations but declines to go into further details, doubtless because of the "verbal conflict" that he had already mentioned and from which he wanted to move on.

Now my take on this picture was mainly down to the opinion that any large creature would be largely indiscernible at longer distances. I compared the Rines picture of a diver near the strobe camera to the body photo, the diver occupies 80% of the height of the frame and the body occupies about 50%. There was about 4.5 feet of the diver visible and I assumed 15 feet for the "body". Using the rule that an object's apparent size reduces in proportion to its distance, if the 15ft object was the same distance from the camera as the diver, it would occupy a theoretical 267% of the frame height.

Since it only occupies 50%, it must be 267/50 time further away or 5.33 times further away. So, if we assume the diver was, say 6ft from the camera, that places our "body" 32 feet away, which I said was too opaque for any distinct image. It looks like the technical team at the time place the object 25 feet away, so my own estimate was not far off this.

I needed more technical information and so I consulted my copy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's "Technology Review" Vol.78 No.5 dated Mar/Apr 1976. This was a report compiled by Robert Rines, Martin Klein, Charles Wyckoff and Harold Edgerton going into the details of the 1975 expedition and in this 16 page article we get more information.

The events which sparked such a furore occurred in a small time frame during the AAS expedition between 9:45pm on the 19th June 1975 and 4:50pm on the 20th June 1975 or an interval of about 17 hours. During this time six pictures of interest were obtained and printed. In others, the bottom of the boat supporting the camera rig is seen indicating the rig had been tilted upwards by some force. The speculation being it was the creature buffeting the strobe and camera. The chronological sequence of pictures is shown below with the time and date underneath each one:

1. 9:45pm 19th June 1975
2. 10:30pm 19th June 1975
3. 4:32am 20th June 1975
4. 5:40am 20th June 1975
5. 11:45am 20th June 1975
6. 4:50pm 20th June 1975


The article estimates the "body" in the famous picture to be 25 feet away and 18 feet long. This is more in keeping with what Dinsdale said. Mackal's apparent disagreement of 7.5 feet is more likely referring to the bulbous part which the MIT article puts at 8 feet long.

Note the proposed setup for this expedition taken from the same article below. The rig suspended in 40 feet of water was the backup to the sonar-triggered device fixed to the loch surface. Indeed, this was the equipment used for the 1972 expedition which produced the "flipper" photograph. This backup flashed automatically every 75 seconds and it was this rig alone that produced the pictures of interest. During the same period, the fixed rig apparently only produced pictures of silt storms.




The article pointed out at the beginning that it was fixed at 40 feet above the other rig and pointing horizontally and therefore was not capable of photographing the surface of the loch bed. The implication was that anything photographed was in mid-water and animate. On that basis, the second picture of a rough looking surface was taken to be the skin of the monster (complete with parasites and anal fold). There were several other inconclusive pictures followed by the now famous gargoyle and body shots.

Reading wider, a look at Dennis Meredith's 1977 book "Search at Loch Ness" pretty much stated the same thing in a more narrative kind of way as it recounted the story of 1975. The problem was whether this backup rig had indeed managed to stay fixed in its position over that 17 hour period. If it had, then these pictures were indeed of great interest. However, the fact that the aforementioned "skin" picture looked more like the loch bed suggested the boat had managed to drift under prevailing winds towards the shore, collided with the rising loch bed and titled upwards, photographing the boat above and rolling over to snap nearby items on the underwater surface.

The MIT article takes the stance that such a thing was not possible and hence anything with a surface must be mid water. What could other contemporary sources reveal about potential problems with the rig? To this I resorted to Rip Hepple's Ness Information Service newsletters.

NIS issue No.9 (June 1975) reports Robert Rines and his team would stay until early July and leave the equipment operating automatically until their return in the Autumn. The weather was described as "wet and windy" which does suggest the potential for boat drift.

Rip Hepple's "Nessletter" further reported in October 1976 (issue 18) how gales at the loch can adversely affect mooring operations as a huge gale ripped the AAS equipment from its moorings and it drifted from Urquhart Bay to Dores, apparently without being seriously damaged.

So, it seems the images we see are all down to the camera snapping objects near it on the loch bed. However, there are some questions that still need to be answered. After all, Tim Dinsdale did not think that all was so cut and dried with the famous "body" picture. Though he did not outright call it "monster", neither did he offer a so called rational explanation for it.

The thing about the body picture is that there appears to be the underwater equivalent of "clear, blue sky" all around it. There is no suggestion in the picture that this object is connected in any way to the loch bed. The best picture I scanned is shown below and, in my opinion, there is water to the left of it as there is water to the right of it.




Objections are raised to the object being out of focus (and hence close up) and being lit from 12 o'clock due to claimed shadows and hence must be very close to the camera. The problem here is that if it was close up the MIT article says it would be outside the light cone of the strobe and hence in relative darkness, dependant on scraps of scattered light. In other words, it is more likely to be inside the strobe light cone to be seen illuminated and hence a lot further away (see diagram below).




Neither should one presume the object is out of focus. My opinion is that any indistinctness in the image is due to it being at the limits of the range of the strobe light and hence beginning to disappear into the darkness. You know, I think I am beginning to warm again to this photograph, but it has to be noted that the body photograph was taken in between two shots which show the loch bed and hence will always have this "guilt by association" even if it could be argued that the camera rig could have intermittently drifted back into open water.

Finally, two questions came to my mind which muddied the waters on this boat dragging business, to coin an appropriate phrase. I do generally accept that the boat dragged the camera rig towards the loch bed, but there are niggles.

Firstly, I note that the pictures of interest were taken on Thursday through to Friday and any boat drift would have begun in daylight hours before the first picture taken at 9:45pm. Sunset was at 22:20pm and sunrise was at 4:30am (note again our episode ran from 9:45pm to 4:50pm).

So one wonders how this proposed drifting was not seen by anyone? The AAS team was still around the loch along with their local volunteers. How could they not have noticed the boat had drifted out of position when it was allegedly still snapping in shallow waters at 4:50pm? Surely if drift had occurred, this would have been logged and any pictures taken during this time discounted? Either that or the locals and the Americans were not up to the job of keeping an eye on the setup!

Secondly, the rig was left there until the autumn. The obvious question here is that there was a good chance that more drift would have occurred and similar pictures would have been snapped. However, there is no mention of such pictures. Surely if the AAS team were taken in by these pictures, they would have been taken in by others or realised their mistake and dropped the whole thing?

So, I would suggest that the mystery of those murky pictures taken in 1975 continues and I would not take anyone to task who thinks that bright bulbous body is none other than the Loch Ness Monster passing within range of Robert Rines' camera. Indeed, I am inclined to join them myself!


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com








46 comments:

  1. Wow. What a follow up! You ken your stuff Roland. 2 additional things I'd like to offer in support of the image as potentially positive evidence: 1) I know you tackled this but just on the whiteness of the image; even if it WAS something albino that wasn't the monster - then what was it? I've never seen a white/light coloured tree stump in water. Aye, when dried, sure, but never waterlogged. And 2) Look at the shape of the serpentine head along with a depressed eye socket. It looks exactly like the head of a marine animal, and by quirk of fate one that partly fits some eyewitness descriptions. There's almost a hint of curiosity in the expression too which reminds me of a bird or a dolphin (is it possibly a diving bird?... I've never even considered that!). Additionally the eye looks as if it's no longer as prominent as it would be for a creature that lived an air breathing surface life. Perhaps indicating that, if it was some kind of living fossil, then it's a creature that has evolved over time to become almost sightless, no longer requiring air. To me it looks like an evolved plesiosaur, which is theoretically plausible, no matter how unlikely. Let me state once again, I would consider myself overall a sceptic, and am well aware of Rhines... let's call it wad l what it was... fakery of the flipper photo. That is highly suspect, yet he was undoubtedly a believer and used the most advanced techniques available at the time and we know this image has not been tampered with. As Roland clearly illustrates the case remains very open that the photo is of a creature in mid water. If there is a legitimate, clear photo of the Loch Ness Monster that gives a comprehensive level of detail then this is it. And I would be very intrigued to ask believers and sceptics too alike if there is any single piece of stronger proof available other than eye witness accounts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt it could be a waterlogged tree as I would expect these to float horizontally .. plus it is the wrong shape.

      Delete
    2. "Look at the shape of the serpentine head along with a depressed eye socket. It looks exactly like the head of a marine animal..."

      What!?

      Delete
    3. There's a line for a mouth and a "depressed eye socket", slightly sunken into the shape of the "serpentine head". As in; it's shaped like a serpentine marine animal, like a plesiosaur, and has an eye socket that is depressed into the skull. To wit; it looks very much like an animal and not a tree trunk. Is that sufficient description to answer your "What!?"?

      Delete
    4. Kyle, are you talking about the "gargoyle" picture or the "body" picture here?

      Delete
  2. If you suggest the camera rig wasn't tumbling over the bottom, then you must think the head, neck, body 'Nessie' in the photo was in the water upside down, as per the configuration in the photo above, is that correct Roland? Rines rotated the photo to make it fit how a swimming plesiosaur 'should' look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "body" is vertical. I note with interest whales sleep vertically, so it is not an unusual posture .. whatever is going on here.

      Delete
    2. The 'body' is actually diagonally pointing about 40 degrees from upright with the 'belly' pointing upwards. The 'neck' is also upside down. The 'head' is bent forward in relation to the neck, and the 'head' goes just past vertical ie with the 'mouth' pointing upwards. A very peculiar position for an animal to be in.

      Most damning of all is the issue which many have pointed out in the past. One of the appendages which some refer to as 'flippers' protrudes from the centre of the 'torso' rather than at the side. The wrongness of the position of that appendage far outweighs to 'rightness' of the perceived mouth and eye socket.

      Delete
    3. I am not quite getting what you are trying to describe. I don't see any "head" or "mouth" or "eye socket". The object is too indistinct to talk about such features.

      As for the "flipper", there is some ambiguity here. Are we looking at a plan view of the supposed creature or just the front thorax-neck region? That answer changes a few things.

      Delete
    4. There is, to coin a phrase, a bilateral symmetry in the "mouth" and a thin, darker indentation that indicates an eye. Am I the only one who can see this? It's very clear to me. If it doesn't renewal itself to you then please try half closing your eyes when you look at the "head" or whack up the contrast/brightness. I would agree that there is some ambiguity about the "flipper".

      Delete
  3. This follow up by you Roland has shown how easily the problems of understanding these photos are, as highlighted by Roy. So many different opinions and answers
    Has anyone ever suggested the photograph could actually be the other way around? as in the neck actually being the tail ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The 'body' does not need to be white to show up on film as such, but the dynamic range between it (clearly illuminated, presumably by a camera flash) and the background great enough that that film cannot capture all tones. Its quite possibly that the illumated portion is over exposed, whilst the rest of the view is underexposed. I'm thinking technology for this was reasonably crude, ie the flash put out the same power for every shot. If that's the case, the amount of light hitting the subject (the 'body') is dependent on distance squared from the flash, and the flash power. Since there are no other points of reference, no comparison can be made. It looks to me as if the strobe light is coming from 2 o'clock and slightly behind.
    The shot is not out of focus, the grain is from using low light film in a poorly illuminated environment, and it might also be cropped in.
    The whole thing suggests either the 'body' is quite close to the flash, or the flash is quite powerful, or both. Without knowing a number of camera and flash settings, and whether the photo was cropped, I don't know of any distance measurements that could be carried out.

    I'm still mystified as to how clear the water appears in many of these photos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with the over/under exposure idea, as well as the closeness of the subject, but you contradict yourself a bit, Martin. You concede grain (silt?) in the photos, I only see that in some of them. But I also agree that some (2 & 4) are very clear. If this "grain" is due to film speed/flash and not silt being kicked up shouldn't these things be consistent? It's not like someone was changing the exposure in between shots...

      Delete
    2. I was just referring to the 'body' shot but I do see grain in all of them myself. The grain is not silt, but the silver crystals of the film, increasing in size for increasing ISO (which is for lower light and most probably used on these occasions). I imagine that the exposure was set manually, based on the flash power, as it is the only real light source. There would be less likelyhood of overexposure with the newer automatic camera setups, which calculate distance and reflectance of the subject. So for these photos I imagine it's simple, the closer to the flash a subject is, the brighter it is, to the point of overexposure.
      The consistency of visible noise in a film is related to the amount of areas with detail and without. Dark areas with low detail show up much more grain, although some areas appear so dark as to have no details whatsoever.

      Delete
  5. If the camera rig was tumbling from hitting the loch bottom then why is there NO SILT in ANY of these pictures? I accept that the boat drifted and the camera captured some bottom debris, but if it hit the bottom then there should be at least a few shots of silt stirred up. Also, if it hit the bottom why are all the objects photographed at a distance from the camera? I would think that there would be some shots of objects right close up to the camera lense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there should be plenty of silt storm shots. One can only presume they were deemed worthless and ignored in the final results.

      Delete
    2. Of course we are seeing a few out of thousands, if not millions, of photos. There is clearly silt in photos 1, 3, and 6. Roland states that the main camera rig, which was fixed to the bottom, only got silt. Where do you think this silt came from?

      Delete
    3. I would think the Rines team would put it down to the creature passing the fixed rig. Their logic would be that suspended backup rig would not suffer from the same silt issues as it was 40ft above ... if it never moved.

      Delete
  6. If you look at it with the view that the neck is actually the tail i think it quite looks like a long tailed frog, in other words it resembles Steve Plambecks giant salamander. I wonder what Steve's thought on that is?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps the view we're seeing is the creature swimming at a vertical incline relative to the camera, with the bottom left portions of the body, neck and left side fore and rear flippers lit by the strobe. The neck curls off to the creature's left, the head looking in the direction of the light source. Just an alternative interpretation of the image.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My conclusion is nowt for sure then!! Still a maybe..water not silt around it and only captured once in the whole sequence of pics bin taken.i would of thought if it was debris on the bottom it wud of bin captured more than once if the camera was rolling around same area for hours taking snaps!! But we cud go on all day lol...does any one know if Bob rines changed his mind on these pics in his later years compared to his full belief in his earlier years???? ....ROY

    ReplyDelete
  9. As with the Gray photograph no matter how much you look at it, turn it upside down or screw your eyes up I'm not sure what it shows.

    Sure, there's a head, neck and body, but the details of these are so at odds with most of the details of surface sightings it's difficult to know where to start.
    As others have noted I'm troubled by the whiteness of the body, yes it's taken by flash, but as we all know from schooldays the lighter a surface is the more reflective it is.
    We also have the question of scale, it could be 20 foot long but it could just as easily be 3 foot long.
    It's an interesting series of snaps but as with all unsatisfactory underwater loch ness data I'm still of the opinion the answer lies with surface photography.

    To use a Great War analogy, sonar and underwater imaging is a sideshow, the war will be won on Western Front of detailed moving images of a surface [ or land ] creature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, but surface photography has sadly failed to reveal anything of worth so far. With the exception of the "muppet" photos which most consider fake there are no photos which, even if they were unquestionably of the monster, show anything of scientific value. Rhines underwater photos got the Loch Ness Monster into the notoriously rigorous journal Nature. Steve Feltham and Tim Dinsdale's life long vigil has ultimately yielded nothing new. I would say that underwater photography is the only serious remaining option left.

      Delete
    2. Maybe we need a remotely operated vehicle with multiple cameras and flashes. Possibly set on a preprogrammed course before returning to be recharged, with some kind of motion detection. It would cost, but it might work. In theory, if it's set up correctly, it should eventually work, and should be less ambiguous. For one, we simply don't know the camera orientation for most of these shots, unless we have a known point of reference, like the loch bed. That information would be invaluable.

      Delete
    3. It would solve the mystery either way. Go Pro video cameras could be fairly easily and cheaply positioned under the Loch en masse. The only issue would actually be monitoring all the footage. You'd have to assign it to volunteers but this could be done remotely on the internet whilst batteries would need to be replaced too. I think mass coverage could be achieved relatively cheaply and effectively. If I had the time and money I'd do it. But instead I'll just visit the Loch from time to time and stare into the murky depths like everyone else. But it's fun to speculate.

      Delete
  10. Agreed JOHN RUTHERFORD, so how some people see a swan in the Gray photograph is just plain daft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That dead swan nonsense is simply down to desperation from a man who is unable to ever say 'I don't have the answer.'

      Delete
    2. I agree with you on that Will.

      Delete
    3. Answering GEZZA's earlier question, I'm in the camp that thinks this is quite a small object close up to the camera, ruling out anything giant. There's enough bilateral symmetry here to suggest some kind of animal though, so I wouldn't rule out a smaller creature. A pregnant Palmate newt looks pretty much exactly like a long-tailed frog, with body and tail proportions extremely similar to the object in this photo, so if this is an animal it is most likely just that. The depth of the loch doesn't seem to pose any obstacle to the common local amphibians -- Dick Raynor got a photo of a frog happily cavorting a couple hundred feet down!

      Delete
  11. Thanks for the reply STEVE PLAMBECK, its nice to hear another opinion from someone who has a big interest in Nessie. Im in the middle camp, as i dont think its huge but comparing it to the diver photograph i dont think its small either. I think its bigger than any other known fish thats in loch ness and at a guess id say 6 - 12 ft, although it is hard to say not knowing exactly the posistion of the camera.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The body shot is printed upside down - the lighting makes this clear. Consider the 1975 installation diagram. Main rig is below and to the left of the secondary rig; so you have to flip the photo over and now the bottom is the top. Now the main rig's flash enters the shot from bottom left, where that rig was fixed. The stuff illuminated is on the bottom, captured by the rig above it. The image even kinda fits with the following, 5:40am shot, of the loch bottom. Also, as I pointed out in Part 1 of this examination, the O'Connor photo is a good example of what the bleaching out a flash can do to an object close to the camera. The O'Connor photo also exhibits another tendency of flash photography - flash drop off. Even a well lit scene, taken with flash, will produce a darker backround due to the drop off the flash's effect. The reflective object closest to the camera will get the majority of the light, leaving everything behind darker than it naturally is...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting that there is a background that we can't see in the body shot? If that's the case the body would need to be closer to the camera than not. Light falls off proportional to distance squared, that's why a background disappears quickly in flash photography. As long as the exposure is set for the flash, which I would imagine is the case here.

      Delete
  13. Go back to Part One and look at the sequence of the three photos involving the "body". Remember, the light source is the other camera rig, which is actually bottom left (flip it!), and that the camera took photos at regular intervals. You can see how the camera moves - yes moves - closer to the light source in each photo. The camera taking the photos is not stationary...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I find it hard to see how such wise men like the academy cud be taken in by a small object close to the camera!! Surely not ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think people like Harold Edgerton and Charles Edgerton would be so dumb when it came to distance calculations. As to identifying what the objects were is a different matter.

      Delete
  15. Hopkarma, I think the orientation is correct in the article, "body" was in the bottom left of the frame.

    I am also not convinced by the closeup object argument, as shown in the article above, the strobe light was set up at an angle and distance to the camera thet produced a dark zone up to 5 feet away. I would expect anything in that zone to be darkly lit from backscatter, as we see with the "gargoyle" pic. The body pic is too brightly lit for that IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then what is the source of the light coming from the upper right? The camera rig is 40 feet down, and the body shot was taken at 4:32am. The only light would be from the two flash units, and one of them is supposed to be 40 feet below the other...

      Delete
    2. Come on now - if you think the orientation of the body is correct, you must have an explanation for the light coming from the "upper right". As for the closeup argument, it gets back to my main point - we are seeing the effect of the other camera's flash. There were two rigs, right? The "body" is mainly being lit by the light source "upper right". The light on the "body" is not coming from the POV of the camera. Do you see this?

      Delete
  16. Lets not forget the eel is white and not close up to tbe camera.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Im no camera expert so was looking for answers lol but so many different opinions and from people with camera knowledge prooving how difficult these pics are!! My guessing is the camera was moving into shelving areas but moving back into deeper water again hence the different pics...gargoyle head was in silt but body one in water and i dont think its a small object close to the camera! Great response ..great mystery...great snaps from the academy...all beautiful..was it the tullimunstrem??? We will never know! Pity we cudnt get this sort of operation again..wud be great..cheers ladz...Roy

    ReplyDelete
  18. I never thought the gargoyle photo was that of Nessie but the torso, neck, and head photograph looks to me like an animal swimming upward.

    Although it is not clear one can see what resembles an aquatic creature in dark peaty water. This photograph I find very interesting, it fits the mould for many Nessie reports. Of all the people who claim head and neck sightings how many would claim this matches what they have seen?

    ReplyDelete
  19. One thing is for sure - when an elaborate search of Loch Ness is about to begin ANY chance of events/circumstances/confusing and or misleading causes must be expected and prevented if possible. The camera bouncing off the Loch sides and bottom should have been considered even if slim odds to avoid speculation of future evidence.

    It's like the webcams around Loch Ness......too much distance to clearly photograph any creatures because everything will just be another blurry distant dot. That is where the media likes to jump in and speculate on some object that could be anything, catchy headline but no interesting content just the same story " it shall remain a mystery..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The webcam at http://www.lochness.co.uk/livecam/ is not completely useless. After watching for a while you get to know the types of boats regularly visiting Castle Urquhart, and if a large animal surfaced in its field of view you would have a point of comparison.
      That said, it's very low resolution by modern standards (0.8 megapixels, compared to 8 megapixels for my newly acquired dashcam). Maybe the owner could ve persuaded to upgrade it.

      Delete
  20. GB has been unusually silent regarding my point about the orientation of the body shot. Take all my points posted above, and add in this - consider the orientation of all the other shots that we know are of the Loch bottom. That would be the ones posted in GB's piece above, taken at the times of 9:45pm/10:30pm/5:40M/11:45am. They all have the same orientation of the body shot, if you realize Rines is promoting the body shot upside down. This is all very clear, innit?

    ReplyDelete
  21. In regards to the gargoyle face not resembling any known creature, consider the Snapping Alligator Turtle underwater. Also, a different facial appearance could be explained by sexual dimorphism and differences due to aging... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdyyft2WIaU

    ReplyDelete