tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post2854078851534960711..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: Is the Hugh Gray Photograph a Swan?Glasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28623568361788178092019-04-10T07:06:15.703-07:002019-04-10T07:06:15.703-07:00It *could* be a double exposure if the second shot...It *could* be a double exposure if the second shot was underexposed enough for the water to appear almost black relative to the other shot, and therefore not superimpose on the wave patterns. I doubt that's the case though.<br /><br />I'm about 85% sure we're looking at motion blur. We're seeing a lot of very fast motion around the torso, much faster than everything else in the shot. The exposure is quick enough for the waves/tail/head to all be frozen in position, but not the body.<br /><br />It would be interesting to know how long the exposure was. Does anyone know? Or we might be able to get a ballpark idea of if anyone knew what camera/lens/film he was using? But with film, you have a lot of latitude to fix exposures at the darkroom stage, so it obviously wouldn't be precise.blankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11639619196101198519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-8689687234955708972019-04-10T04:55:21.750-07:002019-04-10T04:55:21.750-07:00i doubt it is a superimposition mainly because the...i doubt it is a superimposition mainly because the wave patterns between the two shots would be different and this would be apparent on any overlay. The water patterns on the Hugh Gray picture are consistent with one shot.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-74039181280635613992019-04-07T09:39:19.667-07:002019-04-07T09:39:19.667-07:00It could easily be a swan either superimposed on (...It could easily be a swan either superimposed on (by double exposure), or actually interacting with, a jumping fish or other aquatic life. <br /><br />I agree that a swan of normal proportions wouldn't stretch far enough for the rightmost white area to form its tail, but if the swan's rear stops at the dark vertical band (as it does in your overlaid comparison), then the separate white area could be the splash caused by a fish jumping behind it.<br /><br />Why do I think a swan and fish interacting or superimposed is more likely than this being a fish-headed, back-to-front (by traditional standards) Nessie? I'm no academic or industry-level photographic expert, but I am in the somewhat rare position these days of being someone who works occasionally with analogue film, enlargers and darkrooms as part of my day job. The "back" of the creature blending hazily with the water looks to me like it's an artefact of motion blur rather than double exposure. <br /><br />In double exposure, light areas "overwrite" dark, and the water that blends through is comparatively dark compared to the pale object. If the object had a colour gradient to a darker shade in order to allow the water to shine through from the other exposure, I can't see it leaving that smoky light haze. It could be light leak, but there's none of that anywhere except around the object.<br /><br />If it is a motion blur, we have to account for why there is so much motion around the "torso" while the tail/neck remains still enough to appear almost sharp. IMO beating or ruffling wings would be a great candidate to explain that.blankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11639619196101198519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-58768302006062196792017-05-12T08:06:32.519-07:002017-05-12T08:06:32.519-07:00You're looking at the head of the Loch Ness Mo...You're looking at the head of the Loch Ness Monster.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-86919850045071846022017-05-12T07:58:35.677-07:002017-05-12T07:58:35.677-07:00Simple question: if you think this picture is real...Simple question: if you think this picture is real, what role does the fish head play? Unless it's a picture of...a fish splashing around?Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-42924201176349706502016-02-27T11:59:59.306-08:002016-02-27T11:59:59.306-08:00Daz old buddy, AKA Darryl Hedger, where have you ...Daz old buddy, AKA Darryl Hedger, where have you been and what ever became of your 3D sonar expedition? John Alvaradohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18069155979480353745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-90175180416338528002016-02-27T08:37:30.365-08:002016-02-27T08:37:30.365-08:00Bodge "I just cant think that dragging up thi...Bodge "I just cant think that dragging up this photo does any good at all. Ever since seeing it for the first time , I just cant treat it as any sort of evidence for nessie"<br /><br />No need to hide Bodge you have a rite to express your thoughts. I think Nessie/s do exist in the loch, but have great doubts as to the Grey photo. Fraudulent claims of photographic evidence abound, the late Mr. Sheilds for example.<br /><br />Bodge, don't totally believe every photo is nessie. Sonar is the way to go.<br /><br />Daz Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-38181653271846312172016-02-26T14:33:36.950-08:002016-02-26T14:33:36.950-08:00Thanks. I got an A for my Latin O grade, but I hav...Thanks. I got an A for my Latin O grade, but I have clearly forgotten a lot.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-85668459774363849402016-02-26T14:32:01.614-08:002016-02-26T14:32:01.614-08:00Good points.
Good points.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-47012316493850171622016-02-26T13:21:20.204-08:002016-02-26T13:21:20.204-08:00People are known to do strange things on impulse. ...People are known to do strange things on impulse. Nevertheless, we should not imagine 1933 was similar to today, where the ubiquity of digital cameras and mobile phones ensures that people are busy photographing everything that appears in front of them. Popular cameras in 1933 were primitive, and used sparingly, mostly for family shots.<br />Now, we are expected to believe that Mr Gray was strolling along with his camera when he sees a swan with its head in the water. He then decides to take a picture, and when it turns out bad, decides to get his 15 minutes of fame by passing it off as The Monster. But why would he waste film on a swan in the first place? It's not such an unusual sight around the Loch. And all that, of course, assumes that the swan's movements were slow enough to make it worth while taking a picture in the first place.<br />The second possibility is that, when he saw the swan, he recognized that it might be confused for The Monster. That strikes me as being even less likely.Malcolm Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-58731811745809039912016-02-26T12:45:28.034-08:002016-02-26T12:45:28.034-08:00The correct Latin term is canis non gratus.The correct Latin term is <i>canis non gratus</i>.Malcolm Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-30780778448167403692016-02-26T07:03:31.370-08:002016-02-26T07:03:31.370-08:00It was in the original article, I would have to di...It was in the original article, I would have to dig it out to get the exact wording. I would lay good odds those 1933 experts would have spotted a double exposure when they saw one and nobody is on the record as saying so.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-58388814120790465642016-02-26T07:00:24.650-08:002016-02-26T07:00:24.650-08:00I'm unaware.. "Kodak were stated as exami...I'm unaware.. "Kodak were stated as examining the photo at the time" Would that include the negative?<br /><br />Who stated the Kodak examination of the photo?<br /><br />At those times 120 films were D&P at the local chemist or sent to processing labs. Kodak in those days never had a 'in house' technical department (in the UK) to analise film.<br /><br />As to "Of course, people may make educated guesses decades later. That is a different matter" Could you elaborate? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-57110433479541559142016-02-26T02:27:47.307-08:002016-02-26T02:27:47.307-08:00My last take on the photograh.It is 80 odd years o...My last take on the photograh.It is 80 odd years old and only recentley people have claimed ita a swan. Im quite sure if it was a swan then the sceptics would have pointed this out year's ago.None of them did. The truth is they wont and cant accept any photograph to be of a large creature so they simply go through everything bar this as with this image. Clutching at straws in my opinion.<br /><br /><br />Nessie hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16229224123946060762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71589860132332811672016-02-25T09:54:19.192-08:002016-02-25T09:54:19.192-08:00'Of further interest, try looking at the photo...'Of further interest, try looking at the photo upside down' well yes its certainly different, looks to me like a salmon or trout making its way up a small stream (very active imagination)bodge from suffolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11132211236189398270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-65989299525585223622016-02-25T08:42:05.668-08:002016-02-25T08:42:05.668-08:00I am not clear on Tim Dinsdale's position on t...I am not clear on Tim Dinsdale's position on the picture. He suggests a theory about two divers' helmets and a boat. It is easier to imagine a supposed dog and a swan than that.<br /><br />He met and talked with Hugh Gray at least once and examined an original print. My take is that HG would have pointed out the fish like head to the right which probably bamboozled TD as he may have taken the left to be the neck. After all, in the 60s and 70s everything revolved around long necked plesiosaurs.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-86765504441882113612016-02-25T08:28:46.078-08:002016-02-25T08:28:46.078-08:00Agree, I'm on the fence with Dinsdale as to th...Agree, I'm on the fence with Dinsdale as to the Gray photoAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-26846417006820471082016-02-25T07:45:49.389-08:002016-02-25T07:45:49.389-08:00Depends if it shows a real Nessie or not ....
Depends if it shows a real Nessie or not ....<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-33775494552236043722016-02-25T07:44:23.457-08:002016-02-25T07:44:23.457-08:00Well, I have read around on this subject and have ...Well, I have read around on this subject and have not seen any contemporary reference to the type of camera used. Kodak were stated as examining the photo at the time, but that is not an equivalent statement.<br /><br />Of course, people may make educated guesses decades later. That is a different matter.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-27481197159434509002016-02-25T07:16:31.566-08:002016-02-25T07:16:31.566-08:00Further, I am under the belief that persons (past ...Further, I am under the belief that persons (past or present and future) who knowingly pertain to have a photo/film/video of nessies and make financial gains should be charged with fraud or false representation. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-24211308442068001802016-02-25T07:04:11.581-08:002016-02-25T07:04:11.581-08:00David Evans....Maybe I can help? From research by ...David Evans....Maybe I can help? From research by other (persons of interest) I was informed Gray used a Kodak No2 Hawkette camera using 120 film.<br /><br />Of further interest, try looking at the photo upside down. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-51088286011553283012016-02-25T03:17:14.488-08:002016-02-25T03:17:14.488-08:00Do we know what sort of camera it was? This would ...Do we know what sort of camera it was? This would have a bearing on the probability of an accidental double exposure.David Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13590531184544289491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-65788709981661975182016-02-24T20:30:03.490-08:002016-02-24T20:30:03.490-08:00It is a historic photo in the Loch Ness story.Aft...It is a historic photo in the Loch Ness story.After all these years people are still talking about it and coming up with alternative answers. We have heard it all on this one, boat, dog, large amphibian, big eel, and now a swan.Hugh Gray will always be part of the story whether we like it or not.Nessie hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16229224123946060762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-27418499662404683572016-02-24T16:12:20.529-08:002016-02-24T16:12:20.529-08:00Well, Bodge, I regard it as an important photo. So...Well, Bodge, I regard it as an important photo. So do the sceptics as they like to target the icons.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-10792000842935681142016-02-24T16:11:27.250-08:002016-02-24T16:11:27.250-08:00We don't know and the sceptics will come in to...We don't know and the sceptics will come in to fill that void with all kind of speculation.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.com