After the recent offering of webcam photos, I got an email from another webcam user who had some pictures to tell about. Here name is Diana and they are quite an interesting sequence. If one was bold for Nessie, you may think you were looking at a long neck which appears, begins to submerge and is gone in the third picture, all in the space of 27 seconds. The pole like object can be seen just left of centre above the third tree from the left.
A zoom in of the object in its two aspects are shown below. The first image certainly has that pole like quality that is reminiscent of Loch Ness Monster sightings. What it actually is becomes another matter. You may notice the strange looking pixel structure to the bottom right of the second image which likes a square with four smaller squares at each corner.
What is that? Can this artifact bring a charge of photoshopping or is it just a cursor in an inconvenient spot? Remember those childhood puzzles where you had to find small objects in complex pictures? Feel free to locate this cursor in the first picture (as I did)!
Is it actually in the water? I would say it is. How big is the object? One foot, three foot, six foot? That is not so easy to determine, but as a comparison photo is shown below of a passing boat as supplied by our previous webcammer, Joaquin. The boat could be about thirty feet long, but note its perceived length is foreshortened due to it being turned towards the camera.
As ever, webcam photos can be frustrating due to the distances involved. As a consequence of this, opinions are again invited. Further information on pole-like Nessie sightings can be found here.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Are there any more images after the 27 seconds?
ReplyDeleteI'll ask.
DeleteI would suggest in the zoomed photo the pixel break up is due to the tree branches. As to the neck head photo, interesting and thought provoking.
DeleteI wouldn't discount that explanation.
DeleteHi. Dick Raynor surely will say it is a bird. Too dark colour for a so distant object!!!
ReplyDeleteI think these pole-object snaps are much the same Joaquin´s first snap (birds). However, Joaquin,s second is more difficult to question. There is something big in the water ...
DeleteA few years ago on one of my hunting trips i stopped at the camping park on the north shore, the guy running it showed me some photo's of a pole like object he saw a few month's earlier, they looked very much the same as these pictures but a lot closer.
ReplyDeleteUnpublished pictures?
DeleteReminiscent of the Smith film.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Tim Dinsdales " black anaconda " only straightened out. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI find it intriguing (including other reports) this 'pole' protruding out of the water. Is it a neck? Or some other appendage that takes in air?
ReplyDeletehttp://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-pole-like-nessie-sightings.html
DeleteI agree with the fish jumping from the water because I have seen this myself many a time on my hunting trips, however the timing of the seconds between the first and second image is far too great for a quick fish jump.
DeleteThanks for the link GB interesting read.
DeleteThe trees jn the foreground don't do many favours for stills from this webcam as any object in proximity to them is most likely to be bird life around those trees.
ReplyDeleteThat remains the best explanation for these images in my view.
Fascinating. The poor quality is no doubt in part due to the sensor not being the finest, and also the compression used on the file, which approximates what is actually there. The further away the object, the harder this is to achieve. This might have lead to the odd criss cross array seen, although I'm wondering if it is a representation of an actual part of the sensor?
ReplyDeleteI know that compression artifacts can appear, quite visually, with heavy compression, but I'm not convinced that the object itself is an artifact. The still is of poor quality, I know this as I deal with photos daily, and the compression looks high, but it does look interesting. Someone should get a better camera.
Actually, on second looking, the compression looks enormous (smearing everywhere). This camera is not fit to do this job, it'll only ever give half answers.
ReplyDeleteThe first 3 photos in this set seem to have more compression artifacts than the last. Maybe they have gone through an extra stage of copying?
Delete