tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post8936003808705747088..comments2024-02-23T15:49:17.679-08:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: The Forensics of the Loch Ness MonsterGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-26100188101891859762011-08-18T06:17:04.960-07:002011-08-18T06:17:04.960-07:00I think some newspaper did accidentally print the ...I think some newspaper did accidentally print the picture upside down once!<br /><br />As regards the shadow issue, there is no problem there as I will explain in a later blog post. So no need to invert the picture IMO.Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-21824968692650067052011-08-16T22:32:31.332-07:002011-08-16T22:32:31.332-07:00Your rigorous revisiting of the Gray photograph ha...Your rigorous revisiting of the Gray photograph has prompted a few thoughts on its place in the canon of evidence. Even before the canine orthodoxy became the dominant explanation I was always struck by how odd the image is, in particular the hovering line of the form, the strength of the shadow that underlines it, and the odd lack of contact with the water: the 'snake on a carpet/worm on the tarmac effect', you might say, somewhat inelegantly ... . <br />Putting to one side for the moment the notion that the cause of this is stick-based japes, how do we explain this? And, further, let's recall your own comment that for Mr. Gray, out on his post-service walk that mid-November morning '[t]he sun would be roughly to his left and hence the shadow should be more to the right on the image.' <br />Let me suggest this answer: the picture has been printed upside down at every stage since its first appearance in the Daily Record. To get some sense of what I mean I take the 'Heron-Allen image zoom' or the 'wide shot' pictures reproduced in your blog entry and simply flip them in the image manipulating system of your choice. (Tightening up the contrast might also help.) <br />Now, the first thing to note is that the problematic shadow 'skirt' generating the odd floating effect disappears as it becomes recognisable as the shadow behind and coming from from the creature. The shadows - I think I'm right in saying - are congruent with the direction and intensity one might expect ... i.e., 'more to the right on the image.' There is a slightly more effective meeting of creature and water. I'd add that inverting the image also allows us to match Gray's account with what we have before us: 'I did not see any head, for what I took to be the front parts were under the water, but there was considerable movement from what seemed to be the tail, the part furthest from me.' The 'tail', it is clear, was out of the water ... as it can be seen once we've flipped the picture. Incidentally, flipping it also has the additional benefit of highlighting what would appear to be damage to the plate or negative (?) that generated Ted Holliday's (phantom) anterior and posterior parapodia. <br />What we're left with, let me suggest, is an image that curiously but perhaps not coincidentally looks a little like the Spicers' drawing of the creature they encountered 4 months earlier in July 1933.(It also looks, some might be amused to note, a little like Shiels' 'Mary F.' Morgawr, but there you go...). <br /><br />Why has it been printed upside down for 70 years? No idea, but the fact that neither Hugh Gray nor many after knew what the thing actually looked like may well be a factor. <br /><br />Just a thought.pareidolic labradornoreply@blogger.com