Monday, 2 May 2022

A Recent Video Examined

 


A few days back came the latest video published by the Daily Mail of a wake filmed by an anonymous couple from above Urquhart Castle at about 6am on the 25th April. Below is the relevant text from that article:

The woman had woken up just after 6am on Monday and decided to take some photographs as the loch was so still that its surface was like glass. But after spotting something large moving in the water, she began filming on her iPhone and could be heard saying ‘What on Earth is that?’ as her husband joined her to watch what was unfolding. The couple filmed for two minutes and 37 seconds from 6.21am as the mysterious creature – they estimated it to be between 20 and 30 feet in length – swam beneath the water and gave them tantalising glimpses as it broke the surface.

It appeared to have at least one fin or limb, which paddled under the water ‘like an oar’. The woman also took several still pictures from the vantage point of their holiday cottage set on the hillside opposite Urquhart Castle, around a quarter of a mile from the loch. She added: ‘I really don’t know what it was in the water. It was something large. I don’t think it really equates on the video quite how large it was. ‘We don’t know what the creature was. It was propelling itself with something. It wasn’t how a fish would do it.

‘You could see it much clearer than it’s come out in the photos. The lumps or humps or whatever they are kept disappearing under the water, but it was still pushing forward under the water. ‘You could see something under the water, then it rushed forward and turned round. From what we could gauge, it was between 20 and 30 feet long. There was nothing else on the loch, no boats, nothing.’

The shot below with the castle in the foreground gives some context. Now when I read the headline that it was a double hump film and the best footage for twenty years, I thought I have to see this. But as they say, the trailer is often better than the film and I was disappointed with what I saw. In fact, I struggled to see much detail in the mobile camera clip. We are told they were high on a hillside about a quarter of a mile away from the loch.



And therein lies the problem, they were in a comparable position to the controversial webcam clips that have regaled newspapers in recent years. Though admittedly, the resolution of this is a bit better. I believe this is a 640x360 resolution (at 25 frames per second) and it looks like the webcam is 480x360 and so the couple's video has about 33% more information. This is not much compared to the webcam, though I suspect the original iPhone video would be higher, perhaps 720p. If so, an investigation is incomplete without seeing this original file.

Now the image at the top of the article is taken from the Daily Record presumably was a highly zoomed in frame from the video. I say that because we also learn that some photographs were taken by the lady and I suspect they may provide more detail than the video. At this point, I do not have access to these and again the investigation may be incomplete without them. However, if this is an enlargement of a photograph, then perhaps they are not that useful.

But what we see in the top image is interesting in that the two dots are behind the bow of the wave which is being generated by something else. In fact, there appears to be nothing at the head of the wave. Clearly there has to be something there and the conclusion is that whatever it may be is lost in the pixellation.

We have the video and there are photos, but we must not discount the naked eye testimony as others are wont to do. The eyewitness said what they saw with the eye was superior to what was recorded and that I can agree with. The human delivers something which no camera can. In that context, some details come out:

It appeared to have at least one fin or limb, which paddled under the water ‘like an oar’. ... The lumps or humps or whatever they are kept disappearing under the water, but it was still pushing forward under the water. ‘You could see something under the water, then it rushed forward and turned round.

Nevertheless, they were still a quarter of a mile away or about 400 metres. This is not a great distance - unless a thirty foot creature wholly breaks the surface with a double hump and long neck display and goes on a swim for a good few minutes. But certainly, going by the video alone, nobody could conclusively identify what is in the sequence - unless somebody comes forward and confesses they had a vessel or something in that area at that time. However, the lack of detail in the video should not be taken as a reason to discount the naked eye testimony.


Comments can also be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



138 comments:

  1. Just another "Blob" pic as far as I'm concerned. Guess we'll Just have to rely on the woman's account and take it on faith. But like you say GB, had a long neck-like appendage appeared to go with the blob, it might have added a little more credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, it's fairly obvious that it's *something.* I'm at the point where I hope that it's never proven or disproven; the thrill, as they say, is in the hunt. Still, morsels like this are tantalizing because of what they show, but frustrating because of what they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One expert says its the best video for years, another says it is without doubt animate and bigger than known birds, another says its 2 ducks pmpl.These so called nessie experts up there do far more harm than good to the investigation i fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't include me in your generalisation Gezza cos I haven't said a word about this yet.

      Delete
    2. I did not include you in it. I was referring to the 3 so called experts mentioned in the report that is all. I feel with 3 different so called expert opinions it tends to confuse everybody

      Delete
    3. Why can't different people have different opinions? Seems a funny thing to slam people for

      Delete
    4. Agreed Gezza. So called experts are nothing but arch sceptics, doing serious damage to the research. Utterly silent on things like Mrs.Carys sightings and that of the Finlays but vocal on things like this video which clearly shows something large. You can see their modus operandi....attack and say its ducks or otters. Utterly reprehensible. This video conforms with the many reported sightings when the loch was flat calm.
      Nothing else around, just below the surface, a bit similar to the Rowe photo taken at the fish farm. Unfortunately hampered by distance.
      One of the sticks to beat researchers used by the useless, planted sceptics is denigrate those watching webcam for example but show a useless computer screen with blobs as "sonar contacts ".
      You couldn't make it up.

      Delete
    5. I totally agree with you Phoenix man. Robin, im making a point that nobody is an expert.

      Delete
    6. "expert - a person with a high level of knowledge or skill relating to a particular subject"

      Is that true of this subject, Gezza? It is probably difficult to quantify at what level someone becomes an expert here. There is no degree or PhD in the Loch Ness Monster or membership of some institute. I would say there are experts in sub-divisions of the subject, but bringing all the disciplines together, there may well no expert on the complete subject.

      Delete
    7. LOL, even as we speak, someone calls me an expert.

      https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/loch-ness-monster-sighting-ducks-26858701

      Delete
    8. Well if Darren Naish, a skeptic no less, can be an "expert" you can too. LOL

      Delete
    9. I think i qualify as an expert too pmpl

      Delete
    10. I can understand why both the skeptic camp and the Believer's camp get frustrated with one another. I won't get into any specific details here but I like that the skeptics attempt to keep us grounded now and again, I believe that it's necessary and will continue playing a vital role when it comes to Nessie and the research being done.

      I'm very obviously a believer and it'll take a lot of convincing to alter my position but I will say this...we've absorb a vast amount of knowledge over the years and say what you want about Adrian Shine or Dick Raynor, you cannot deny that they themselves have invested years in the study and research of Loch Ness. You need to remember that even we as believers have debated, argued, debunked and called BS on several accounts (may differ depending on who you speak to) or when analysing pictures and video footage.

      My only issue I have with skeptics is that some will tell you what you've seen or experienced without actually being there themselves, so in that moment they can only speculate and offer different possibilities which isn’t a negative in my book.

      Delete
    11. Yes, AR, they can offer some sense, but they go to extremes in the explanations they offer. I guess you pick out the flesh and spit out the bones.

      Delete
  4. When my daughter snapped a foto near Fort augustus last July u might remember me saying we were first drawn to strange movements and a wake in the water! Well this video wake is exactly wat we saw... Same movements and glossy wake with the rear wake bin longer than the front one! ! And as we were very high up and a couple of miles from the disturbance it defo wasn't a duck or bird! Love this video.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Therein lies the problem - distance. The further away an object is, the less information there is to extract about it and as the information decreases the number of possible explanations inversely increases. More information!

      Delete
    2. At 400 meters (1312 ft) that's still quite a considerable distance for even the human eye to discern any detail let alone a low res phone camera. The observer would have to have eagle eye vision even to pick out such detail on a submerged 20 to 30 ft object

      Delete
  5. if between 20-30 feet long, would the creature able to be seen even at a distance by a person or on a phone then? Does it seem to be a really large fish then?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It looks like it could be a swan and 2 cygnets following behind, the adult. When the paddle boarders were down at the castle during the recent webcam controversy, the 2 adult swans were very close to this location, of this video, which were clearly observed in the guys video clips taken close to the castle. The wake is also turning towards the shore, and it is hard to understand why she didn't continue filming, especially when she was convinced they were in fact filming a large object 20 to 30 feet long. Sorry the eyewitness account is not convincing, never mind the video clip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cant see any swans in the photo.

      Delete
    2. Not enough pixels, that's why.

      Delete
    3. So why no objects at the head of the wake?

      Delete
    4. The interesting point here is that the bow wave in the top picture does not appear complete - the two arms do not meet, indicating a loss of detail in that area perhaps.

      Delete
  7. distance is the problem here, from the tower of the castle this video might be of value but half a mile away with a piss poor camera it's next to useless, this can be put in the drawer alongside all the other inconclusive wake action videos.
    the gods of luck have been very remiss over the decades in never aligning a Finlay type sighting observed by multiple witnesses who all are in possession of a steady hand and the right type of still and movie equipment. If only.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Gezza, just because you don't see anything at the head of the wake, implies there is nothing there, that is not the case , as GB said, there is not enough pixels, to fully determine this point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if you cant see anything why do you say its swans with cygnets?

      Delete
    2. There looks like a gap at the head of the wake, if there is a Swan there which can't be seen because of a lack of pixels why can the smaller cygnets be seen.

      Delete
    3. On the video, you can see nothing but a wake, those 2 shapes back from the head of the wake are only visible from the photo.

      Delete
    4. So where are the other two?

      Delete
    5. Hello Camman,

      thanks for your reply, I agree that the film footage shows only a wake but in that footage the wake looks like it comes to a point at the head. In the still photo what are described as "Cygnets" indicates more information is available in that format but there seems to be less information available showing the head of the wake and zero information showing the "Swan". I am puzzled by this discrepancy. The only thing I can think of is that the "cygnets" provide more contrast than the "Swan". Maybe I am missing something here.

      Delete
  9. Has there every been any reported "noise" that Nessie makes, any kind of sound like a roar or anything? And does she always sink and disappear once boat arrives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A German woman who lived in Fort Augustus for many years saw two creatures one summers evening whilst she was looking from the mouth of the canal towards Glebdoe, a large one and a smaller one. She described a noise like... "like a snorting water horse",
      I've always lived that phrase.

      Delete
    2. Well I read some where, and this may just be anecdotal, about fisherman out on a boat who heard a disturbance in the water and then heard a loud snorting. Nessie blowing it's nose.

      Delete
    3. I just reread your article from 2020 about his account of the "asthmatic" Nessie. Sadly Arthur died in 2021 at the age of 83.

      Delete
  10. The other point we are not debating is why did the eyewitness stop filming? The video in my opinion abruptly ends. If the wake ended, at that point, the water in that area should still be disturbed, and how did she know that, in her view she was looking at an object 20 to 30 feet long, that this monstrous object would not reappear. If I was filming this and convinced I was looking at Nessie, I would have a sore arm before I would stop filming!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didnt Roland mention some photographs taken? Im thinking maybe they stopped filming so they could get a few still stills? More information needed i think.

      Delete
    2. Everyone who visits that Loch enthusiast or skeptic will always glance across the water, some want to see something and are actively scanning the Loch whereas others may just be happy filming and snapping pictures of the landscape. My point is that those who don't really care or invest their time into such mysteries may not really be bothered about what they are seeing or filming.

      I'm with you, I'd be completely fixated and I'd keep my eye on it for as long as I can but that's us, we can't expect everyone to be the same as much as we want that lol Hope that makes sense Camman.

      Delete
  11. Roland, besides the cost factor of installing SOTA cameras, etc., what else is stopping someone from doing this? How much of the land surrounding the Loch is private, and what sections are public and/or controlled by local government regulations -- which would need to be dealt with before any such equipment could go in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are currently looking into this at LNE. I'm confident that Roland will have the correct information and answer but I've read that if your webcam or camera is over overlooking members of the public then the GDPR and the DPA Act comes into play. If its just overlooking the Loch then perhaps you might be able to skip that tricky Act, I think it's similar to Google Street in that sense but I've honestly not got the correct answer.

      We'll be up on Saturday for our own observation so we're looking forward to it!

      Delete
    2. Thanks, A.R. Assuming multiple cameras would be allowed (or more realistically only a few), what would be the best spots around the Loch to set them up? I'm sure the group here has suggestions as well. We haven't even discussed the kind of sonar sweeps on the Loch that would be required for good coverage.

      Delete
    3. @TheLatman Yeah, that's the one.

      Delete
    4. @Ron Yup, the HD camera topic has been floating around for some time now. I'm sure Roland suggested placing an HD camera on the actual grounds of Urquhart Castle, it's a great vantage point.

      As for other locations, I personally believe that we should be placing a camera or several near to the rivers that enter the Loch. If fish enter from those specific locations then its possible that Nessie roams close by, deep enough to avoid detection and shallow enough when hunting food. It's wishful thinking but a few underwater cameras in similar locations would be a treat! You'd need to have a decent amount of funding to launch something like that and find a few divers brave enough to head into the Loch, that certainly would not be me lol

      Delete
    5. A couple of camera stations would cost a fraction of what the billionaire owner of Skinwalker Ranch has spent on that venture. Surely the LNM deserves its own sugar daddy.

      Delete
    6. @Ron I'm with you on that one.

      Delete
    7. I use trap cameras for motion detect surveillance. It would be ideal to station these in private grounds away from tourists. Webcams in the right place would also be good, but traps cams are good as they will not give you distant blobs but rather objects close up on triggering the motion sensor. The downside is you will have to wait a long time for this!

      Delete
    8. Yeah, no kidding Gb! How many years have you been staking cameras and nary a hit. That elusive Nessie just will not sit still for a portrait. You're probably cursed with the LNM hoodoo!

      Delete
    9. @ Ron And after 25 years of intense "scientific" investigation, first by Bigelow and now by Fugal, there is nothing to show or conclusions made as to the nature of the phenomena. Precognitive sentient intelligence, demonic entities, aliens of extraterrestrial or dimensional origins, who knows. There is a Trickster element in all this that stays one step ahead, thwarting any meaningful or sensible explanations.

      Delete
    10. If Tom Slick had lived long enough he'd have probably financed a Loch Ness venture before now. There's so much money stuffed in billionaire's pockets these days I remain surprised no one has come forward -- financing a few sensor stations would be a pittance to them. Oh well, if Fugal ever has a garage sale maybe some LNM investigator can swing a deal.

      Delete
    11. Yes I'm sure that with unlimited monies and modern high tech gizzmos, the LNM would be revealed. I mean it wouldn't be like the old days of the LNIB or the Rines investigations with relatively antiquated equipment. As it is right now, as far as I know, there is no active entity or group conducting any detailed investigations. Roland does his best with his trap cameras and occasional forays to the loch and focusing attention on this mystery. If any billionaires are reading this throw a couple of billions at him, he'll get the job done. Even if he has to drain the loch. LOL

      Delete
    12. Compensate Roland, yes. Shakespeare got to get paid, son.

      What do cameras cost these days, plus associated equipment? Sonar is expensive, but we're still talking under a million bucks, no? Such a deal.

      But that's putting the water horse before the cart: start with cameras. Less (maybe) than the cost of private jet fuel to get to Scotland.

      Delete
    13. Years indeed John. The problem is the area covered by the cameras is minute compared to the loch surface area. I calculated odds of 1/145 I think that a creature could be snapped in a given year.

      Delete
    14. Game cameras are not expensive. Sonar requires a boat, I assume a few thousand quid for decent sonar installed. You have more chance of a sonar hit than a camera hit, but the quality of sonar image is inferior to optical.

      Delete
  12. I understand what they mean by the visibility was better than the iPhone captured. Frustrating as this sounds like it was quite the sighting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "How Much is the Loch Ness Monster Worth to the Scottish Economy?" About $54 million US per year according to this article...
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-loch-ness-monster-worth-190114514.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if that's even a fraction of the revenue that the LMN produces the scottish govt. [ or the local council ] see fit to put eff all of that money back into the local infrastructure . sorry for flogging my old hobby horse, but if loch ness + monster was situated in Oregon or Idaho there would be nessie theme parks, nessieburgers + fries, museums, zipline rides across the loch, OK it's tacky but, it's criminally shocking how scotland relies on tourism but does bog all to promote it . Same with St. Andrews, home of golf ? for the entire world, really ? you wouldn't think it driving through this tumbleweed fifey town.

      Delete
    2. Hi John, you have a strong point there. Around Loch Ness, in the local Tourist shops, you would hardly find a decent book on the subject, that was not meant for 4 year olds to look at.

      Delete
    3. I also forgot to mention, The tourist office in Drumnadrochit has nothing in it about the LNM. I found that incredible to understand the logic, in storing no information on the subject, that draws all the people to Loch Ness in the first place, well most of them. For a subject known throughout the world, it is not known in that tourist office, matter of fact the receptionist, when you ask her a question on the subject, is left looking at you as if you just arrived from outer space.

      Delete
    4. I'm actually glad that the tourist office there doesn't promote the LNM. Remember, not everyone who arrives at Loch Ness is seeking the LNM and many will have zero interest. There's nothing worse when visiting tourist hot spots and seeing that every second store is the same and selling identical items. Boring really. The surrounding area has much more to offer than just the LNM.

      Delete
    5. The LNM is tourism, to the Scottish Tourist Board, the last count before Covid was 41 million euro to the Scottish economy, that is more than enough millions to have information of some sort in a tourist office at Loch Ness. Hell, only for the LNM, there may not have been any office in Drumnadrochit, in the first place.

      Delete
    6. I think they should sell pro-LNM books in local tourist outlets. But they evidently think tourists have the attention span of a goldfish. As for those millions, it will mainly go to the private companies and some will expand their operations, employ more people, but I hope it doesnt expand too much!

      Delete
  14. Are there any guesses as to how many animals Loch ness based upon food supply can actually support, and would the amount and type of food supply determine what type of creature could be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Jesusfan You should explore Roland's Blog in-depth as the answers to your questions are there. Right hand side and look for the topic that addresses food.

      Delete
  15. First paragraph:
    "Daily Mail"
    "anonymous couple"
    Ok, well that's me out.

    But seriously, it's kinda interesting but there is no neck and it doesn't seem overly massive. Probability would dictate a known animal. GB outlined the distance/pixel issue quite succinctly as always.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sunrise at Loch Ness on the 25th was at 05.43. It seems very bright there in the video clip, supposedly taken at 06.18.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will be
      telling us next its a boat because your swans and cygnets idea didnt hold much water.

      Delete
  17. Everyones opinions about this video are based on a low res reproduction of the original footage. I have been told by someone who can call himself an "expert" on images who has seen the original, that the original is of far better quality, and therefore of far more use when forming opinions.
    I would have thought that Gary Campbell will be uploading a better version to his register soon. I'm happy to wait to see that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said in the article, the original video has to be higher resolution. But we can only work with what is given. What about the photographs?

      Delete
    2. Surely the video if taken on a phone will give the correct time it was taken. Im suprised Camman is doubting the time of it.

      Delete
    3. I mean anyone can adjust the time on there devices, it is not rocket science.

      Delete
    4. Camman, why would anyone want to adjust the time and/or lie about it? And with regards the light, the camera will adjust exposure based on what it sees, and what it thinks we want to see. The algorithms can be quite complex (ie. only the programmers know how they work), but basically if the scene is dull it will adjust the exposure to brighten it. This may come at a cost, such as noise, and corresponding noise reduction which smooths out detail.
      If this was taken on a modern phone, the original resolution could be 1080p or 4k, much more than the published version.

      Delete
    5. So your calling them liars then Camman?

      Delete
  18. It is bright about that time now in the mornings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Gezza, are you sure about that, it was the 25th of April not the 25th of May. Even now there are some mornings in Loch Ness, at 06.18, that wouldn't light up a cigarette.

      Delete
    2. Yes im up for work at that time and its bright.

      Delete
    3. Hi Gezza, the weather at Inverness between 06.00-12.00 on the morning of the 25th of April was drizzle, 10kmh wind NNE, 1021 mbar. I don't see any rain in the video clip.

      Delete
    4. The video wasnt taken in inverness.

      Delete
    5. Well that was the regional forecast for the area including Inverness, and Urquhart Castle is only 17.7 miles away from Inverness. Don't shoot the messenger, I am just explaining what the weather forecast was on the morning of the sighting. It is not up for debate, it is fact.

      Delete
    6. Camman, are you referring to the weather forecast or the actual data recorded? You can go to various weather websites and get different hourly forecasts saying rain and no rain.

      Delete
    7. The actual data recorded.

      Delete
    8. Camman, can you give the link for your Inverness data? Thanks.

      Delete
    9. Well Gezza, if that is what you want to believe, fine with me, I really don't care, GB asked me a question there, I gave him the answer through an email.

      Delete
    10. Yes, you did, thanks. It was a daily forecast split into four six hour sections, the 0600-1200 window was cloud and rain. However, I would counter with a 30 minute chart at
      https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/gb/inverness/EGPE/date/2022-4-25

      The precipitation chart shows it dropping to zero at the time the eyewitnesses looked out the loch - 0620-0720.

      Delete
    11. Hi GB, if this was a court of law, the judge or jury, would have to decide to run with your forecast, or my website forecast, and the real issue in relation to this topic, is whether there was ample visibility available to determine a disturbance in the Loch at 400 metres.

      Delete
    12. Of course there would be enough visibilty at that time and that distance.

      Delete
    13. The difficulty with that is we are now in the month of May, and 06.18am now is not the same as 06.18 on the 25th of April. We also have 2 conflicting archive forecasts that don't match. So we can't say definitively whether it was raining or not, that may obstruct vision, light and rain.

      Delete
    14. It was only 3 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago it was light at that time of the morning. I am up for work at this time, so i do know.

      Delete
    15. I don't think the forecasts are in conflict. The precipitation chart is accurate to 30 mins, the 6 hours on yours is a summary of the predominant weather over that period, unless you think it is saying it rained continuously for six hours?

      Delete
    16. I am not saying anything, I am not a Meteorologist.

      Delete
    17. Hi Gezza, what was the weather like at Loch Ness on the morning of the 26th of April. My point being, you wouldn't have seen 100 yards in front of you at 6.00am because of fog. Visibility is reactive to weather conditions, and each morning at Loch Ness at 6.00am, is different according to atmospheric conditions, so you cannot say that because you are up for work at that hour most mornings, it is light, and each morning you can see a 20 to 30 foot creature moving through the water at 400 metres at a higher elevation from the object. From where they were they were standing," the couple", I would guess it is a hell of a lot more than 400 metres.

      Delete
    18. I didnt mention a 30 ft creature. I disagree, the distance isnt that great and its bright enough at 6.20 in the mornings as it was at the end of april. I know because im up at that time for work. Are you up at that time?

      Delete
    19. Well, this has been an interesting thread on the forensics of a video/photo/sighting. However, as far as I am concerned, I usually invest such time in an item that I think has something of value. As things stand, this video does not and so I regard the gymnastics over weather and light levels as just shadow boxing.

      Delete
    20. LOL! You took the words right out of my mouth. The debate change from the merits of the pic, to whether the weather and time of day was good enough for a pic.

      Suggestion for an alternate title for the article as "The Fair Weather Nessie" And I agree, there is little value in this pic, and we should take the observer's eyeball sighting at face value, that carries more weight.

      Delete
    21. Yes but when people claim wrong information it needs to be taken apart.

      Delete
    22. Yes, if it is important, but life could get very stressful if you go around correcting everyone around you and online. Do you want to be that consistent?

      Delete
    23. This could be a good sighting, so yes its important to clear
      away the accusations that these people are lying about their sighting. Im suprised you disagree.

      Delete
    24. Yes I agree with GB on this there is no value to this video or photo

      Delete
    25. I don't think they are lying, but to put the matter to bed, one needs to film that area from above the castle at a suitably adjusted time in the weeks ahead.

      Delete
  19. The woman said in her account that a fin or limb could be seen, as paddling through the water like an oar, well I would imagine that to see this, the object would have to be quite high out off the water, given that she estimated the length of the to be in the region of 20 to 30 feet. In all photos that we have to date on LNM, I don't think we have any fins sticking up out of the water on there own, with nothing else showing, or have we?

    ReplyDelete
  20. In the photo above, if the 2 dark shapes in the middle to back of the wake were part of the one object, with the wake in front, should there not be more disturbance of water around these 2 objects, visible in the photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would the same water disturbance not apply to the Cygnets as they kept pace with the mother Swan?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  21. A socio-cultural perspective...
    "From Loch Ness to the Essex Serpent, why are humans so keen to invent sea monsters?"
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/may/08/from-loch-ness-to-the-essex-serpent-why-are-humans-so-keen-to-invent-sea-monsters

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the words of Roy Walker, it's good but it's not right.

      Delete
    2. Note the last para: "A respected whale scientist once told me his colleague had seen a large unidentified serpentine animal at sea, almost the length of the ship he was on." Apparently there is something like this that lives, of all places, in San Francisco Bay, and are well known to maintenance workers for water pipes going into the bay...

      Delete
    3. This is where the herd mentality hobbles us. You mention it, you're mad, you have no job. It's crazy. A very interesting observation.

      Delete
    4. There are various videos and photos of these creatures, but indistinct like many from Loch Ness...
      https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/03/the-mysterious-sea-monsters-of-san-francisco-bay/

      Delete
    5. Perhaps the thing is a visitor instead of an inhabitant, which might explain the lack of more sightings in such a public area.

      Delete
    6. You mean for San fran bay, for loch ness, or for both?

      Delete
    7. My comment was about the Bay, but applies to the Loch as well.

      Delete
  22. Have to agree with Mr Feltham ya can't judge anything on this low res video plus it's too far away.. Only thing that caught my eye was wake was similar to what I saw when dawta snapped a foto! I wud love to see the original vid!! Sad to see people claiming that the couple are fibbing.. Always the same I suppose... Countdown now for my loch ness trip....7 weeks and counting lol. Although I doubt I'll be up and about at 6.30 in the mornings lol.. Hope the tullimunstrems are up and about a bit later lol... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happens to the wake at the end of there video, puts me off this alleged sighting, sorry, every body is entitled to their opinion, and that's mine, I am not blown away with the wake.

      Delete
    2. I dont think anybody has said that the wake has blown them away. I did question that they might have stopped filming so they could obtain still photograhs. I think we need more answers.

      Delete
    3. Hey Roy, make sure you have a state of the art camera with you :)

      Delete
    4. Haha Latman wish I cud afford one lol.. Annoying thing is my daughter had a good camera on the trip with cracking zoom but we didn't take it up the hill walk.. we left it in the cabin!! I will keep it with us at all times in this year's trip ! Going for 10 days this time.. Can't wait . Cheers

      Delete
    5. Hi Latman, you don't need a camera at all, all you need to be armed with is sketching paper and a HB pencil, Colin Veacock, sighting last July, gave us a sketch.

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree there is not much value to this version of the vid!! Mr Feltham said summit about a better original one out there.. Is there any more on this?? . I'd like to see it!.....6 weeks and counting till I'm there lol... Hope the garage in Fort augustus will be well stocked up on tennents ..cheers

    ReplyDelete
  25. we should say other lagers are available, best to stock up in morrisons at fort william Roy, garage off-licence prices are atrocious and would bring a tear to the eye of a dedicated outdoor lager enthusiast like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol John.. Good advice! Prob heading to Inverness first will stock up there! No other brands for me.. Tennents is my fav lager and when in Scotland and all that lol...i guarantee I will run out though so av to get a few from the garage!! To be fair the beer prices are not too bad in the one in Fort augustus!! Ya can't beat sitting out the cabin on a nice day with a few beers with one eye on the loch in hope of summit surfacing .. Cheers

      Delete
  26. Clearly the owner of this site operates a selective right to reply policy so i'll hit the delete button and take my leave. Will say though that you adopted the Rhine's thumbnail after my comment as an advocate for this photo ('damned by association') and you (albeit briefly) took the view that the LNM was a visitor to the Loch following my YouTube post about the non-viability of a breeding group of 20 or so animals (limit based on fish stocks)
    Good hunting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Au contraire, GMTV Gold. Every comment is still on the moderation queue, nothing accepted or rejected. I was totally focused on another event in Seville. Now I am in a state of mourning. But having seen the comments, I see plenty of potential for escalation. Is that something I want as a moderator? I will delete the comment that provoked a few people, including yourself.

      Delete
  27. I'm drunk again... Jeez!! and ruminating. I could go on and on about the Loch Nesss Monster explaining what I think about what the creature is with a gathering of sloop headed morons. Tell you the truth, I don't have the foggiest myself, so I'm not too brite either just like so many so called “experts”

    As things stand now, all bets are off. I am long in the tooth and judging by the past so called “evidence”, I don't expect much. Pessimistic I am. I am resigned to the fact that I may never know. In my death bed , I will be thinking of Nessie and cursing God. “What's it all about Afie” BTW Cila's Black is the best, of course. Dionne Warwick's rendition follows.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I see everything GB Nothing escapees my eyes, Not even your moderation. Is there app for that?. Beware

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks for not posting my stupid comments. Roland. I'm back to my senses. I applaud you for your wisdom and judgment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do I tell which ones are stupid, John? lol

      Delete
    2. Just filter out the obvious, like mine... I guess. LOL

      Delete
  30. We don't know what these animals feed on; they could be omnivorous and bottom feeders like catfish, so fish is not the only potential food source...

    ReplyDelete
  31. If only someone had been at this sighting with a camera drone... Sent it flying down for a closer look and gotten a few hundred percent more information!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, if only! That would have clinched it. A planform snapshot of the monster in all it's glory. Weres a drone when you need one.

      Delete
  32. Commiserate about the bears GB, I knew penalties would be beyond them
    Safe to say the next time a Scottish team get to a euro final we will have identified LNM and instigated a breeding programme to send the strongest and fittest creatures to populate Mars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were the hooligans out in force John? In my perfect Mad Max World I woud send them on a one way trip to the Sun. All expenses paid. Infight meal optional.

      Delete