Friday, 24 September 2021

Loch Ness Monster caught by Drone Camera?

 


A new image from Loch Ness with a new twist appeared in the media yesterday. By  a new twist I mean a drone video of something allegedly in the waters below. Now I use my drone at Loch Ness in the hope that I will catch footage of something interesting just below the surface, but invisible to those watching from the shore. In that light, I was very curious to see this footage. You can go this link and fast forward to about 3:45 to see something that appears to be just below the water moving towards the shore.

The media story can be found here. I found it to be an impressive looking video, so it was time to ask the owner of the video some questions and I posted it on the Zombie Plesiosaur Society Facebook group to generate views and discussion. This is where the path from impressive to not so impressive began its journey. I first made contact with Richard Mavor who posted the video and asked him some questions. The first was the important one. Could I see the original video file from the drone? His answer on the messenger box is below.




This raised a red flag right away, as will be explained later, but I am a drone user too and have plenty of 4K files from way back. In this day of terabyte storage, why would someone extract a few seconds clip and throw away the record of an important and memorable trip? It didn't make sense to me. But I dutifully asked the other questions and then put a scenario to him.



Okay, perhaps they saw nothing, but this creature was practically within biting distance. The ante was upped when it was mentioned on Facebook that two clips from the video showed the same scene, but one without the creature, the other clip being at 1:44. This was demonstrated in this comparison image with thanks to Henry Baker and James Kitwood. It may be a bit hard to see as the image is just appearing, so compare on the actual video if you prefer.



I thought one could also produce a similar split image with no creature in either frame as it was just about to appear giving us split second timing in how to begin each sequence. However, that is just my opinion and for me more was required. That led to the thought that Richard claimed he did not see it at the time and struggled to see it even now (as he said in the YouTube comments). But for me, the creature appearing out of the depths just as this random clip began without the editor knowing about it was just too much of a coincidence.

The next and biggest nail in the coffin was the fact that someone else (Jonathan  Falcone on Steve Feltham's group) mentioned it looked just like the famous Robert Rines 1975 underwater picture of a bulbous body and long neck. Here is the comparison and suggests to me the Rines photo was the template for this one and ironic that one underwater picture leads to another underwater one. It also has to be said that if you observe the rock to the left of the creature's "head", water is clearly lapping over the rock, suggesting the depth where the "head" is must be only inches!

 


Another and better comparison is by Sam Shearon who thinks the template is a picture of a plesiosaur which is shown below. This looks a good fit, so make your choice as to which was used, either way it's not looking good for this video.




I think that pushes us beyond the realms of coincidence and hence push this video beyond the realms of acceptable. The object moving towards the shore would seem to be a plus against inanimate object theories, but I looked hard to see any movement within the creature itself, I concluded whatever the motion of a Nessie may or may not be, we should expect some flipper, neck or tail articulation. The more unpalatable truth is the Rines photo was the basis for this hoax.

Going back to the lack of original drone files, the deletion argument is not an acceptable answer and comes straight out of the hoaxer play book. Readers may recall the previous hoaxes perpetrated by Ricky Philips and Steve Challice. When both of these people were asked for the original images, they either claimed it was deleted or something which was clearly not the raw image file was sent. The implication being the original files would give the game away. The same applies here.

Also Richard saying he and his colleagues saw nothing when this "creature" was practically upon them is not credible. So taking all these observations into account, we have to once again file this one under "fake". It was suggested Richard would eventually come clean. Perhaps he will, but the hoaxer play book again suggests he won't. Philips and Challice never confessed and my last message to Richard suggests he will not either:



I guess even though they see it as a harmless prank, they don't want to self-incriminate and be put on the record as liars as it may end up on their CVs. After all, how many people plead "not guilty" in court? The TV detective series where the criminal confesses to all at the dramatic end rarely happens in real life. All in all, these hoaxes just create problems for serious researchers. If I produce drone footage next summer with a plesiosaur looking beast moving along, sceptics will point to this video and say "Nah, another CGI!". That raises the bar of proof, but I hope people who know me would treat me differently.

Once again, we ask the question has easy digital image manipulation rendered video-still image evidence worthless? I think the answer is no, but it is clear that the vetting of such images and their owners must be thorough and use all the tools at our disposal. Fortunately, this one took less than a day to expose, so the perfect but fake image would seem to be a project beyond many. But I say that hoping not to tempt fate!

 

 

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

 




47 comments:

  1. Beautiful! Right on time for me to read and enjoy tonight West Coast US time 4:10 PST

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth be told, I would rather be looking at genuine sightings!

      Delete
    2. Same here, John. Roland's a swift one, he is.

      Delete
    3. Another disappointing hoax? No wonder people find it hard to accept unknown marine animals inhabiting Loch Ness and other bodies of water.

      Delete
  2. He's gotten some publicity for his group and charity, a nice chortle, and seems a snippy sort on top of it. Buh bye.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, that's pretty bang on the money Roland.
    Your communication with him shines quite a light on his story.
    Deleting the original film is a cause for alarm bells.
    But to go to the lengths of adding in the nessie shape in order to make the hoax, only to also use an undoctored version of exactly the same sequence of film, thus giving investigators a 'before and after'piece of film to solve the mystery was a classic slap on his own forehead moment.
    I'm going to stick with my prediction that he will admit what he tried to do pretty soon though, otherwise he's going to find himself sat on the Good Morning Britain sofa with Philip Scofield trying to pull off this lie, and that isn't going to work.
    It's refreshing to have a hoax solved and filed in under 24 hours, shows we are not totally gullible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL Yeah He'll be on Aussie TV like that other guy with the fake photoshopped Nessie which turned out to be a catfish. We should start calling this blog the Nessie Bullshit Clearing House. It irks the hell out of me so much that some people do this deceptive crap. It hinders the true aim of getting to the bottom of this mystery. And I want to know what a Nessie is before I die!

      Delete
    2. Could start by ignoring 'sightings' from that useless webcam, that would help improve the subjects credibility.

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. I'm with Steve on the webcam footage. It's routinely garbage or indecipherable. Even if it captured a monster it would be useless scientifically.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but we need to supply these remote watchers with better and sharper tools. With that in place, these people become a more valuable asset in the hunt. Just need someone on the lochside to host an HD/4K webcam.

      Delete
  5. Good detective work again Roland. Do they think us to be complete dolts and idiots? Well, thanks to you, we are not. Maybe if you hadn't exposed them, I would have been sucked in. The level of denial and obfuscation is astounding. What was their aim and motivation? A harmless prank in their mindset surely. People like this are a hindrance in the search for truth and are worst than closed minded skeptics. I got to give credit to Steve Feltham too, he smelled a rat also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Credit to others who also chipped in with their analysis. I am just collating it all, adding my own observations and presenting it as a complete argument.

      Delete
    2. My credit goes to James kitwood, he was the first yesterday morning to do a shot for shot comparison on the two bits of film, and the first to say that it was provably fake.
      But contacting the guy really seal it too.

      Delete
    3. I used Henry Baker's side by side comparison, but I will mention James too.

      Delete
    4. Added credit to Jonathan Falcone, anyone else?

      Delete
    5. Whilst we are at it Sam Shearon found the original Nessie image on line that was superimposed into the drone footage, and did some great work demonstrating comparisons.

      Delete
    6. I had Jonathan Falcone on your group comparing it to the Rines photo?

      Delete
    7. I have just seen Sam's comparison. Nice one, I have updated article to include his comparison.

      Delete
    8. Refreshing teamwork.
      We should nurture this.

      Delete
  6. I am so bored of fakers. If he'd just fessed up and said: "Yeah it was for the video" then no worries at all. But the evasive way he tried to string it out is very silly. The Surgeon's photo did it better 90 years ago so your banter is dreadfully dated. I guess most people don't take the mystery very seriously but even objectively I don't find attempted fakery these days particularly funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is still holding out this afternoon, I've posted a comment on his YouTube video and other people have too, calling him out for attempting a hoax, he's been deleting those comments, so he is still trying to get away with it.

      Delete
    2. I think this went south on him fast and he'll put the blame on us, folks who can't take a joke, and it was all for a good cause.

      Don't mess with Ness.

      Delete
  7. BTW, this is from his YouTube channel:

    "My son has just started working for a company called People’s Cinema. People’s Cinema is encouraging film making from traditional pathways as well as the self-taught. The company helps to empower people’s creativity and gets them noticed in a vastly competitive industry."

    I guess this is how you get noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Blue Mermaid, you're not reading the article or comments properly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For every genuine step forward with this mystery, fakes send us two steps back!
    Real evidence risks getting drowned out by this sort of stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet a collective blind eye is turned to the BS coming from that webcam almost every week.

      Delete
    2. Steve Feltham, locate that camera and take it out pronto!

      Delete
    3. @Steve Absolutely. Couldn't agree more with that statement.

      Delete
  10. That webcam is the last place we should be looking at for definitive, conclusive proof. Headlines read "The Loch Ness Monster Spotted on Webcam" By a sharp eyed viewer no less. Unfortunately the blob seen is less than "sharp" Nice for viewing a grand vista of Loch Ness, useless for “spotting” Nessie.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not an expert on judging pictures but this one looks highly suspect for two reasons. Firstly, the object appears to be in shallow water and if any closer to the shore would have ended up as a beached plesiosaur! The overall size would also suggest it is probably too small to match some of the eyewitness accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know, I just had my first full viewing of the video by Richard Outdoor on my big screen TV and I have to say that it is a very well put together and impressive travelogue with grand beautiful Loch Ness scenery. It gave me a sense of being there and wishing I was there in that adventure. I give them credit for that. I am missing something from this video surely. They don't specifically mention any claim to capturing the Loch Ness Monster on that YouTube video. Initially, I went to the Facebook page cited, but couldn't get in. Perhaps that's where these claims were made and the deception started. Anyway, I don't' want to sound like I jumped the gun in judgment, but I'm sure this has all been vetted by GB, who is a very thorough investigator and others. I trust that the facts are as presented.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Addendum: I don't doubt this, but I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate. You know me and my wild no holds barred thinking sometimes. Just throwing it out there. And no apologies, I answer to one!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Addendum to addendum: Just being provocative and ornery and a little drunk. I'm only human!. Okay, I'll shut up now. Till next time, when I put my foot in my mouth! Buh bye!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hopes raised, then dashed straight away..looked too good to be true, then when I fully read your article GB it does indeed smack of a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Forgot to ask, have you made any headway with the Wignall footage at all?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 867,892 views already on Richard's canoe video, and 1.5 k likes, I don"t think anyone is listening to the hoax clip, arguments are falling on deaf ears.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
  18. https://www-ladbible-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ladbible.com/news/viral-loch-ness-monster-experts-brand-new-sighting-a-hoax-20210927.amp.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16327800815104&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ladbible.com%2Fnews%2Fviral-loch-ness-monster-experts-brand-new-sighting-a-hoax-20210927

    ReplyDelete
  19. Has this hoax generated more money for their charity i wonder? Maybe thats what the intention was, so all for a good cause.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Must confess I can't make head or tail (quite literally) of this pic...is the thing on the right supposed to a head of just a log

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is what the IT geeks call an "Easter Egg", which is a message, image, or feature hidden in software programs, videos, films etc as a promotional stunt or added feature...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm being proper lazy this evening, I would normally read through the comments before posting my own so I apologise in advance.

    I know that this recent 'account' is clearly a hoax but it also instantly reminded me about the long lost Sydney Wignall footage from Loch Morar...

    "But the most frightening bit shows a creature - or something - lying perfectly still at the side or the loch. Whenever I get to that bit, my hair stands on end"

    Just a small quote from the original post which you can find and read on this Blog. Cheers Roland 😉

    ReplyDelete