tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post1570749532227659543..comments2024-02-23T15:49:17.679-08:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: Dinsdale, Dashcams and Paint TraysGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-24972451079368556052013-09-14T13:45:14.880-07:002013-09-14T13:45:14.880-07:00This is fascinating information, ekm. I've wan...This is fascinating information, ekm. I've wanted for some time to know more about the workings of the camera used. Many thanks.Chasing Leviathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-34200877405818766022013-09-12T12:16:03.917-07:002013-09-12T12:16:03.917-07:00Hard to say, as I'm not a mathematician. The i...Hard to say, as I'm not a mathematician. The issue is further compounded by the fact that JARIC studied stills rather than the actual motion picture (!).<br /><br />But the deal is this: the motor is wound and then runs for roughly thirty seconds. Sometimes twenty-eight. Or twenty-nine. Or thirty-one. Or thirty-two. Couple this with the fact that as the motor winds down, the frame rate changes as the film speed is compromised.<br /><br />I used this camera in film school, and external audio recorded on a seperate unit doesn't always sync, as it captures at a consistent speed, while the camera does not.<br /><br />The Bolex was designed for wartime filming, in remote locations: no power source needed. Crank, then shoot for half a minute. This offered the ability to shoot in the trenches or the wild, but for speed measurements, it can be unreliable.<br /><br />May be a minor issue, may not. Regardless, I've not seen this mentioned in any of the literature.ekmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-91725476003454054062013-09-12T11:39:54.322-07:002013-09-12T11:39:54.322-07:00So ... how would you retrofit that to previous ana...So ... how would you retrofit that to previous analyses?<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-36784272667676592082013-09-12T10:03:32.640-07:002013-09-12T10:03:32.640-07:00GB: The Bolex does NOT shoot at a consistent 24fps...GB: The Bolex does NOT shoot at a consistent 24fps, making both sync sound AND Nessie analysis very difficult, indeed!<br /><br />Using 24fps as a consistent model is going to yield a flawed result.ekmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-29536191374923872182013-09-09T08:53:13.468-07:002013-09-09T08:53:13.468-07:00Appreciate the invites Dick. :)
JonAppreciate the invites Dick. :)<br /><br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-70248147018462237132013-09-08T10:53:42.834-07:002013-09-08T10:53:42.834-07:00Steve - I doubt that image stacking would tell us ...Steve - I doubt that image stacking would tell us much in the first part of the film as the object is well-defined without it. Close examination of the film suggests to me a rolling motion consistent with a light displacement boat but not consistent with a mainly submerged object, and of course rolling would mess up the stacking process.<br /><br />I did have one thought while at Foyers a few days ago and that was that Tim described the object as being of a mahogany colour, and the rock faces along the opposite shore are also of a reddish colour, making image recognition difficult.<br /><br />Before anyone asks, I have experimented with image stacking on my own 1967 film, but with no useful result. Birds running on the surface would - and did - simply make for a grey blur.Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-79027630496527529872013-09-07T13:20:36.351-07:002013-09-07T13:20:36.351-07:00Jon - Feel free to email me or ask questions at th...Jon - Feel free to email me or ask questions at the Great Loch Ness Monster Debate Facebook page if you don't want to ask here.<br />As for the regional insult question, I'm not offended at all. We of Anglian descent - with the names Raynor or Watson :-) have ancestors who came from the Jutland peninsula = modern Denmark in the post Roman period.Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-9270029714865839792013-09-07T08:30:06.750-07:002013-09-07T08:30:06.750-07:00Sorry, my faux pas. Hope it isn't some regiona...Sorry, my faux pas. Hope it isn't some regional insult I committed by my ignorant ugly amerikan self. ;-D<br /><br />Anywho, more questions I'm raising regarding this particular image stacking but I don't want to expound on it if this particular thread has run its course. ;)<br /><br />Appreciate the back and forth with you all nonetheless<br /><br />Jon (half wop, half ukey)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-6313867503452772802013-09-07T07:38:35.550-07:002013-09-07T07:38:35.550-07:00Interesting read. I've been to Loch Ness many ...Interesting read. I've been to Loch Ness many times as I only live a few miles away. It's a beautiful place to visit, with or without Nessie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-1816697902578387472013-09-06T06:21:54.089-07:002013-09-06T06:21:54.089-07:00Jon, It may come as a surprise but I think there a...Jon, It may come as a surprise but I think there are many people living in Foyers today who have never seen nor even heard of the Dinsdale Film. Thirty or forty years ago it would have been a higher proportion. A keen salmon angler would be out fishing, not watching television, and I am not even sure that there was any reception in that area back then. There are several boat launching places at Foyers, and none are in the general view of residential properties, so comings and goings by boat were and still are a commonplace event, but mainly unobserved. There was a suggestion that Jock Forbes had a boat, but I think that story has been roundly denied. If it were true I suspect he would have needed a larger than usual one :-)<br /><br />PS I am not a Scot.Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-82219730451945263062013-09-05T16:25:51.289-07:002013-09-05T16:25:51.289-07:00Yes hopkarma, that bothers me too. Plus GB says he...Yes hopkarma, that bothers me too. Plus GB says he's had two other non filmed sightings where I thought it was just one. Also the loch is just not that wide to mistake a boat. I think a range stated was around 1300 yards which translates to .74 miles. You'd have to be blind as a bat.... lol<br /><br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-19952416212823712142013-09-05T16:17:19.113-07:002013-09-05T16:17:19.113-07:00Thanks for the reply Dick. I understand what you&#...Thanks for the reply Dick. I understand what you're saying regarding your explanation as to why the object Dinsdale filmed wasn't as distinct as the control boat subject and have taken that into further consideration.<br /><br />However, let me dig further.... or nitpick as the case may be. Theoretically, unless multiple experiments are done as close as possible with regards to lighting, time of day and year, equipment, film stock... what you wind up with is what we have now.... a good enough representation for the boat advocates to say its a boat and not good enough for the contrary view.<br /><br />Something else. Now who exactly was it that was boating their way in that area at that day and time? I'd imagine any resident with a licensed motorized skiff in the habit of cruising the loch would pretty much be a well known an easily identified person. <br />IOW, there probably isn't a single person on this planet unaware of the Dinsdale film, let alone a motor boating Loch Ness resident, that they would have come forward at some point and say, "hey lads... that was me!"<br /><br />Maybe some one has but the only mention of such a thing that I can recall is that some gentlemen, whether operating in some sort of official loch caretaking capacity or a private citizen, was said to usually travel across the loch around that time. But, I've never read anything to my knowledge about an actual person claiming to be the boat operator that was filmed.<br /><br />Anyways, I wish I lived there and be able to hang with all you guys. I imagine you all as very interesting characters to be with. I guess I imagine Scots as some version or another of Billy Connolly, lol<br /><br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-78830628804083791722013-09-05T13:27:47.288-07:002013-09-05T13:27:47.288-07:00Jon - There were substantial waves at the time of ...Jon - There were substantial waves at the time of the Nessie filming, evidenced by the splashing of the bows - the "paddle strokes". These would cause the boat to go through more than one pitch cycle during the >4 seconds of frames used for the stack, so distorting it in the vertical plane. The frames were only registered in the horizontal plane and not in the pitch axis. The wave height had reduced considerably by the time of the comparison boat sequence, as can be seen from the areas of "catspaws". Now that the Dinsdale family have made a better quality version of the film available "duty-free", anyone can do their own measurements of the object's speed once they are told that the height of the road where the white vehicle is travelling is 28 -29 metres above sea level,(from O.S.map spot heights) and that the loch surface averages 16 metres a.s.l. This means that the distance between the shoreline and the road level is for practical purposes 13 metres. That gives you a scale by which you can calculate the speed of the object, realise that it is within the hull speed of a light displacement angler's boat, and so negate the JARIC conclusion that it is "probably animate".<br />This in no way "disproves" anything about strange things being observed at Loch Ness, except that this particular one has now, after 53 years, been finally explained.<br />Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-46631887330299283522013-09-05T12:09:23.143-07:002013-09-05T12:09:23.143-07:00Jon - those whose say Dinsdale filmed a boat expla...Jon - those whose say Dinsdale filmed a boat explain it like this: the object does not submerge at all, but due to the limited range of the B&W film it simply blends into the shadowy side of the loch as it enters the shadow. The light had changed when the control footage was shot. My problem with this theory is that Dinsdale was seeing it live and in color, not in B&W, which means either the object submerged or Dinsdale was flat out lying. hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-38146605026030094072013-09-05T08:36:16.085-07:002013-09-05T08:36:16.085-07:00Something(s) bugging me about this image stacking ...Something(s) bugging me about this image stacking business and I'm trying to figure it out.<br />I for one can not quite make the jump that the object in Dinsdale's film one to one corresponds with the control image stack of the boat. <br />Again, we are subject here to the human brain's desire for pattern making. To those that say Dinsdale filmed a boat, they see a man in a boat (with apologies to various regional analogies to a certain female body part), while others see the creature.<br /><br />Now how big to you reckon Dinsdale's 'boat' is? Because that 'person' seems to be freakishly large in comparison to the person in the control boat.<br /><br />Everything in a (film) photograph is real, not only the boat, so everything in a frame is going to be composed of film grain and in the case of movie film, it'll always be shifting from one exposure to the next. However, there should be a difference when image stacking with regards to a fixed solid object (boat, rock, house, shore, etc) and that of objects constantly in flux (water falls, waves, clouds, nessie's wake? etc).<br />This is why you will get that blurred misty quality from moving water while stationary objects stay in sharp focus in time exposed photographs we are all familiar with.<br /><br />Same holds true for image stacking. Successive stacking of film frames will make the water blur while more or less the 'solid' object (the boat, as long as its in register) should show up more defined/sharper. Which the boat does in the control image stack.<br />However, in the Dinsdale film, it does not, except perhaps for the head of the wake (the bright spot being touted as the supposed license disc).<br /><br />On a side note... one person engaging in an image stacking experiment (Mr Shine) does not make for good science ironically. Maybe 10 non biased photoshop experts provided with the still frames and have them all image stack separately? <br /><br />I'm also a bit dubious of this image stacking which seems to taken from a videotape recording of a televised recording and then photographed off a tv screen. Hmmmm<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-5785244569943609732013-09-05T01:14:26.108-07:002013-09-05T01:14:26.108-07:00I'll do my own image stacking when the time co...I'll do my own image stacking when the time comes, science is a discipline that demands reproducability. However, 60 seconds of film at 24fps is 1440 frames, so that will take some time.<br /><br />A boat and a monster? You would make a good ambassador, Steve!<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-20241055651086727572013-09-04T23:33:43.580-07:002013-09-04T23:33:43.580-07:00I seriously doubt Adrian Shine mixed up the two fi...I seriously doubt Adrian Shine mixed up the two films, the original and the control, when he ran his image stacking experiments. Actually it would hardly matter, as he applied the technique to both films for comparison, and you can find side by side examples of results from both if you scroll down a ways at: http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Remembered.html<br /><br />In the end the boat in one looks so much like the boat in the other because, well, in this case they're both boats.Steve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-83963103459064267932013-09-04T23:09:45.216-07:002013-09-04T23:09:45.216-07:00(continued from above)
I would draw everyone'...(continued from above)<br /><br />I would draw everyone's attention to Seconds 17 and 18 of the film (or 41 and 42 if you don't allow for the 24 seconds of documentary text preceding the footage at the site for Angus Dinsdale's book). At the bottom of Second 16 the object we've observed swimming away from us so far raises its head or front end a second time and plunges or dives with a notably big splash. Checking Tim's account in his book Loch Ness Monster, this corresponds to the point he said he filmed the submergence. In second 17 we no longer see the object itself anymore, nor continued progress across the Loch, only a fair disturbance in the water where the animal sounded. It's only a second, one scant second preserved on film, but if in that second Tim was filming a boat, what's it doing under water?<br /><br />Second 18 of the film resumes AFTER Tim paused for one of the camera winds. How much time had lapsed here I wonder? We now have a boat, and it's proven to be a boat, speeding southwest, parallel to the shore, it's wake perpendicularly intersecting the previous direction of the subsided but still visible disturbance where the object in Second 17 submerged. If these are the same object, then it resurfaced while Tim was winding the camera, and executed an almost perfect 90 degree port (left) turn. We see that in the film, and in Tim's diagram in his book. He took this second object to be a re-emergence of the first, having made that acute turn.<br /><br />Unfortunately Dinsdale was panning to the left, so the disturbance where the first object submerged is sitting right on the right-hand border, the very edge of the frame. We can't see what's in the water to the right of that. If we could, I'd conjecture we'd see the wake of object #2, the boat, extending further to the right, back the way it came. Tim would have overlooked the boat until then as it would have been very inconspicuous sitting motionless, before it started it's motor as it must have while he was busy winding up the camera during the break in filming between Seconds 17 and 18. Perhaps the helmsman of object #2 had even seen object #1 approaching and decided to get the hell out of there. Perhaps the animal heard the engine start, knew the boat would cross its path, explaining why it picked that very moment to heave up and dive fast.<br /><br />And so perhaps everyone is actually right. Or is it just that I like happy endings?<br /><br />Steve<br />Steve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-25938361011417693662013-09-04T23:08:36.802-07:002013-09-04T23:08:36.802-07:00A fine expedition Roland, and a great travel repor...A fine expedition Roland, and a great travel report. This particular article was an especially good read, with the night time drive down Monster Alley a major highlight indeed. Thanks for sharing the thrill of that with us all.<br /><br />As for the Dinsdale film, offhand would you or anyone here recall how many seconds of filming were lost each time Tim paused to wind his camera? Now why do I ask that?<br /><br />While we have the full film up at http://www.themanwhofilmednessie.com/tims-nessie-film.html I've been getting the best look at it I think I've ever had, and I think I'm ready to suggest something to upset my friends on both sides of the monster/boat debate. Everyone could be right.<br /><br />Adrian's image stacking methodology is perfectly sound and technically rigorous, and I stand with Dick's analysis and interpretation of those image results. It's a boat in those frames, headed south west and parallel to the far shore. That's not going to get refuted, not scientifically, because it's irrefutable. The skeptics are correct.<br /><br />But the object filmed crossing the Loch north westwards, headed away from Tim in the first 17 seconds of footage really, really appears to be a different object. I'd like to see the image stacking process applied to these earlier frames, to see if it can refute what my eyes are telling me: THAT is an animal. Not just because of the lack of the propeller wake, but because I see a dark hump, a (big) head raised and turning at one point, and even a sinusoidally flexing tail scraping the the surface behind the hump at one point. That's what my eyes are telling me, and if that's true then the non-skeptics are also correct.<br /><br />(continued in 2nd comment)Steve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-11686182891662895702013-09-04T13:52:14.272-07:002013-09-04T13:52:14.272-07:00I was hoping you would do that. You're the loc...I was hoping you would do that. You're the local man!<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-8122849369164970962013-09-04T11:45:00.885-07:002013-09-04T11:45:00.885-07:00Roland, I have now completed that task. If you cou...Roland, I have now completed that task. If you could kindly contact the witness and ask him where he was at the time of his observation, I will post my video of that location.<br /><br />Regards, Dick.Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-63297521861837030172013-09-03T17:59:26.628-07:002013-09-03T17:59:26.628-07:00GB-
A wonderful presentation of your time at the ...GB-<br /><br />A wonderful presentation of your time at the loch. As always, your observations are insightful and thought-provoking. Thanks for continuing to maintain such a marvelous blog.bfjordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04526164970021554937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-27601605971019681872013-09-03T14:43:46.378-07:002013-09-03T14:43:46.378-07:00Greetings Dr Bauer!
I have not yet received my co...Greetings Dr Bauer!<br />I have not yet received my copy of Angus' book so I cannot comment on its contents, but I can point out that the informed conclusion that TD filmed a boat is not based on looking at the film - although a helmsman is there is you look for him even in this version. The critical evidence comes from an image stacking process carried out by the Loch Ness Project. As you will know, the grainy black and white enlargements of frames from Tim's film have a low signal to noise ratio, and the "data" grains are virtually indistinguishable from the "noise" grains. However, when 100 or so consecutive frames are overlaid in register with 1% opacity each, the random "noise" grains blend to a mid-gray tone, while the "data" grains are preserved at their real value. The results can be seen on my web page http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Remembered.html and the pale figure of the helmsman is clearly visible, together with a hint of a second person further forward in the boat. The presence of this person would tend to keep the bows down and account for the slapping of the waves clearly visible in the projected film; whereas a single-manned boat would tend to pitch more. In any event, "paddle strokes" proposed at the time are out of the question for a "completely submerged" creature which did not make them when 1/3 out of the water.<br />I look forward to your comments.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dick<br /><br />PS I came across the list of attendees for the 1972 LNI Christmas Party recently, and was pleased to see your name on it.<br /><br />PPS I work as a boat skipper on Loch Ness and am in a position to make daily observations of boats and wakes and other surface effects on the loch. Many videos are to be found on my website. Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-79037562394042636202013-09-02T15:25:13.307-07:002013-09-02T15:25:13.307-07:00Roland, this jam-packed article is very informativ...Roland, this jam-packed article is very informative and the whole site is just a gem. Long may you wave!.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02461832498123701742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-44383051509005547432013-09-02T15:23:43.602-07:002013-09-02T15:23:43.602-07:00This link will get you to the page where you can c...This link will get you to the page where you can click on the famous Dinsdale film, and which is shown in MUCH longer form than I've personally ever seen:<br /><br />http://www.themanwhofilmednessie.com/ <br /><br />Clearly those debunkers who've been using a side shot of the filmed 'control' boat footage from later the same day, claiming it's new, startling proof that Dinsdale only filmed a boat, can have no response to the actual animal footage, going away from the camera and almost totally submerging from the side view. Seeing this full film has absolutely made my day/week/year..https://www.blogger.com/profile/02461832498123701742noreply@blogger.com