Sunday 9 October 2022

Loch Ness Investigation and Loch Ness Exploration


I was back up at the loch last month with various intentions on my mind. The first and perhaps most important task was trap cameras. As readers may recall, these automated monster hunters gaze over the loch waters, strapped to trees waiting for something of noteworthy dimensions to pass in front of them. They operate on a twenty four hour basis as they switch to infra-red mode as night descends.

Now admittedly, having reviewed the night time shots from past excursions, the quality of them is not that great as the only objects visible tend to be any flapping branches right beside the camera or rain, as shown below. Unless the creature came right up to sniff one of these cameras, one wonders if it would register at all at night. However, the sequence of lunar pictures below would give us a sensational monster pose if it decided to surface under the moon shine. Actually, we have a claimed sighting of the monster in such circumstances you can read here. Well, for the time being I will leave the timer on 24 hour duty.







The daytime shots had the usual selection of boats, paddle boarders, kayakers and the odd bird, which at least shows these cameras are doing their job. I had left one camera ticking away over the summer period as the risk from hoards of tourists finding a camera and deciding it was theirs is too great. But it was still there when I came back for it. I am still going through the many images of waves. It was noticeably warmer than when I was there for the same time period last year. The foliage was more extensive and the flies were annoyingly greater in number. Definitely keep the trousers and long sleeves on when walking through that stuff lest a tick alights on you!

After that I drove over to meet up with Adrian Shine at the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre. I had asked him if I could view some of the old Loch Ness Investigation Bureau films from the 1960s that had been scanned and digitised. To reprise, the LNIB had set up various camera stations around the loch from 1962 onwards armed with telephoto lenses and 35mm film. The hope was obviously that the creature would stray into the view of one of these rigs and convincing evidence would be obtained.

As we know, no game changing film was recorded. The best known was the 1967 sequence taken by Dick Raynor, but the rest have never been seen. Back in 1976, Roy Mackal reviewed some of these films for his book, "The Monsters of Loch Ness". He mentions ten films and labelled them as films F8-F11, F13, F16-F18 and F21-F22 taken between 1962 and 1969. Unlike the Raynor film, none of these were classed as "positive evidence" but rather as inconclusive, birds or waves. 

With all that in mind, we pulled up some chairs at the Drumnadrochit Hotel and Adrian ran the videos in his laptop. The sequence of films ran for some ten minutes, with some being repeated or zoomed in. This was interspersed with the odd footage of LNIB people. I am not sure how many of the ten were shown, perhaps no more than five. One of them was certainly the Raynor film, but it was impossible to line up what films we saw against the Mackal list above. It seems the film canisters were not labelled with the necessary information. Indeed, trying to identify the locations by markers on the far shores would have helped somewhat, but this proved difficult as well, especially with the passage of up to sixty years,

The quality of the films varied but were all generally poor and what was in the water looked like either water disturbances or water fowl. Quite frankly, they didn't look much better than other inconclusive videos seen over the years and decades. One film I am sometimes asked about is film F10 taken on June 6th 1963 and claimed as the only film of Nessie on land. The observers reported that a dark cylindrical object took to shore on a beach and lay in the shallows at a distance of about 2.25 miles. A long neck and head were observed for about half an hour.

I am fairly certain that film was not on the video run I saw and so I cannot speak to that or the others I did not see. Obviously, one has to point out the stupendous distance, well above what is normally stated in eyewitness reports and one would see next to nothing at that range with the naked eye. Using binoculars of 8x magnification would bring the object to an apparent distance of about 450 metres. The specification of the camera telephoto lends described by Mackal suggests a 9x magnification or an apparent distance of 400 metres but with attenuation of details.

Having said that, JARIC and a panel of experts examined the film but the great distance precluded all but acknowledging that the form of the object generally agreed with the observer testimony. I would imagine this is the film one would want to see above all the others, but it would be brave or foolish to state without reservation that it was the Loch Ness Monster being filmed. Some other matters were discussed, such as the Dinsdale film and the interesting sonar contact of September 2020 which will form an article in its own right. A final matter was discussed which shall be expanded upon in another future article.

Having taken my leave of Adrian, the second part of the article title becomes relevant as I met up with Alan McKenna from Edinburgh who heads up the Loch Ness Exploration (LNE) group. In the spirit of the old Loch Ness Investigation, Alan's new venture invites people to join him at Loch Ness for various surface watches as well as any other observational techniques that modern technology offers. You can find the Loch Ness Exploration group on Facebook at this link

We were going to head off to the next LNE observation spot beyond Temple Pier having mentioned my meeting with Adrian. Alan said he would love to meet him and, lo and behold, Adrian appeared in the distance and the rest is history. We spent a good hour or so discussing various aspects of the monster story, including the matter of sonar and the trials of surface observations. A couple of guys from New Zealand joined in who said they were also cryptozoologists investigating such matters down under. 

Having concluded the conversations, I was right out of time and had to pick up my family in Inverness who had hitched a ride for a day trip up north. I took them for some sightseeing around the loch before heading back south. Did I see Nessie that day? No, nothing broke the surface but all in all it was a good day amongst the people of the great Loch Ness mystery.


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

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




191 comments:

  1. Sorry to say that in all the years that you have been employing these cameras, they seem to be cursed by the infamous Loch Ness Hoodoo. Not even a blob Nessie to show. Well, something's got to give one of these days. Keep trying and good luck. BTW, have you ever asked Adrian Shine if he follows your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, I forgot to mention. Wasn't there supposedly a long distance filming allegedly taken by the LNIB from an opposite shore of a Nessie on a distant shore out of the water? Or was that all anecdotal or been lost.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oops! Nevermind my last comment! Missed it by scanning other paragraphs first. Anyway, don't remember who said, or where I read it, but it was claimed the Nessie on land was a small boat with a person standing next to it or in it, hence the appearance of a neck.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder how many "cryptozoologists" have no degree in zoology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares, most crytozoologists are not professional zoologists. LOL

      Delete
  5. Thanks for this. I can better appreciate the difficulties in the search now because of the webcams.

    Last night there was moonlight at Shoreland. I saw a black line lying still in the water by the trees which I assumed was a shadow. When I looked again a few minutes later, the black line had moved out into the lake against the prevailing wind which was a bit odd. I got all excited and snapped a pic. But then the line began to fade away. So I guess it was a shadow, reflection or other artefact.

    So this is not easy! Observations have to be evaluated and weighed with great care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was just thinking and amused that with Roland's luck with these cameras, the monster will surface and cavort outside the lighted moonbeam in total darkness. LOL!

      Delete
    2. It probably did exactly that, the sneaky beast!

      Delete
    3. Maby that " artifact" was chasing fish?

      Delete
  6. Mr Raynor is bin too modest bout his video! That wake is pretty impressive from that distance.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thought I remembered other articles you had posted on the LNIB films years ago. Found them!

    http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2014/09/those-loch-ness-investigation-bureau.html

    http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2015/09/more-on-those-lnib-films.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reading the older article from 5 September 2014, it is of note that both Dick Raynor and Adrian Shine admit that the F10 film may be irretrievably lost. But then again was there ever anything there to see in view of the great distance, quality and resolving power of the camera? I guess we'll never know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. GB, did you happen to see the LNI film of a dome-like object moving in Urquart Bay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably was the water tank, you know, fell through a Beckjord wormhole back to the 1960s. It may explain almost every sighting since 1933!

      Delete
    2. No not every sighting lol just the Invermoriston sonar nonsense!! Oh and don't dismiss all the work going on near the loch in invermoriston and Fort augustus just before these contacts lol... Cheers

      Delete
    3. The water tank has only bin in the loch since 2020 so it's not guilty on most sightings or sonar lol.. Oh and it's still in there .. Cheers

      Delete
    4. LOL! Land sightings too? Maybe it's time shifting from land to water!

      Delete
    5. Took the words out of my mouth, John. You're not a PhD in physics?

      Delete
    6. Strange.. U tell me to give water tank a rest and u bring it up again lol

      Delete
    7. Maby we need a Cryptoplumber if its a water tank?

      Delete
    8. What shape and size would the sonar trace be if the contact was Roy's water tank.

      Delete
    9. It's not my tank Jack I'm just telling what I heard off people in Fort augustus..so rather concerning with these contacts just after! Great question though but I have already asked this along with how do we get a 15 to 20 ft size on this or how do we know its animate but nobody seems to know the answer yet they say its evidence for nessie.. So I'll ask again.. How do we get a 15 to 20 ft size on ti's sonar contact??? ???? .. Cheers

      Delete
    10. Maybe we have sonar with a built in measuring tape?

      Delete
    11. Hi Roy, to be sure, a sonar contact is a sonar contact, that's it, nobody knows what it is, it is pure speculation.

      Delete
  10. I received an email from Dick Raynor to clarify the status of the F10 film and likely scenario. There are two pics he sent that show the small spit of shore from a distance and a Google Earth shot showing the camera position as Acnahannet with a diagonal line of sight of two miles. Can't figure out how to post a link, sorry. Here is what he had to say:

    My understanding is that the team back at the time visited the beach in question some days afterwards and found a large log. It was, as still is, a beach where anglers and passing paddlers often go ashore and pull their 14ft boats up onto the gravel while they have a rest, dram, or spend the night. The sighting reports of the event still exist, but have been rejected as Nessie evidence.

    Please find attached a composite photo taken with a Panasonic Lumix from virtually the same location at Achnahannet at 1x and 60x optical zoom.

    The range from the original camera location to this beach is exactly 2 miles.

    The volunteers on that expedition included professional cameramen using 35mm cine cameras but with only 6" lenses. They used colour film but I have never seen the film roll, positive or negative, in any of the cans which have passed through my hands.

    Roy Mackal once had it, as likely did Bob Rines, but none of it ever came back to the Highlands.

    I hope this helps. Regards, Dick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This should work, I hope. Wish I knew how to do "Hot Links"

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/18UpS48EluPzz1Ml5KG94IfhLmdDDpQFL/view?usp=sharing

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LrDQ7JbrPRL8Cj4B5N6CT691zIK3ajX3/view?usp=sharing

      Delete
    2. Thanks. I get access denied on links, you will have to change some access permissions. John.

      Delete
    3. OK did something. General access "Anyone with the link" See if it works now.

      Delete
  11. Can't wait to read your upcoming article about your conversation with Adrian about Ronald Mackenzies sonar contact, that should be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking forward to reading that too, especially as Mr Shine has been on record stating the sonar contact he wants to see is a crescent shaped objet..... Am i correct in assuming this isnt the 1st sonar hit Mr MacKenzie has had?

      Delete
    2. Yes the Game Changing Water Tank, we might find out what type of metal it was made out off

      Delete
    3. Still gathering thoughts on sonar ... I am off on holiday soon, so Nessie stuff has taken a back seat. As for water tanks ... that's on the same level as the guy who suggested an old viking serpent boat is buried in the loch and occasionally surfaces with its long wooden neck. I have not decided whether the Loch Ness Water Tank is a more stupid theory.

      Delete
  12. I'm looking forward to Mr Shine's opinion too.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  13. Omg! Finally got in after months of attempts! The actual Riitta passed away in May, but I decided to retain her name on this blog as a mark of respect. That's all for now...hopefully be back later...God bless all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome back. Was it Jules, is that you? Who was the original Ritta? Your wife was it?

      Delete
  14. Yes, John...it's Jules...Riitta was my partner...had to sign in her name 'cus it wouldn't allow me to setup my own, until now. Nice to be back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My condolences. I missed your good nature.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, John, though it wasn't entirely out of the blue .

      Delete
  15. Dick Raynor shared a sighting report from the F10 incident with me. Seems a Biddy Hall was the observer. Using binoculars, she said she saw a man standing in a boat!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Judging by the comments, seems everybody is more interested in sonar contacts (still) than the F10 film now. I guess everybody has made up their minds that there is nothing to it. So ends the myth of the Nesie on shore film tale. Dick has done his job, case closed as far as I'm concerned. And as Roland also mentions in the article, there is a lot of room for doubt. Dick also mentions the existence of other films of the same incident. Where could those be? Another mystery. Meh, doesn't matter at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just this evening I started to re-watch "Arthur Clarke's Mysterious World" on DVD. The very first introductory episode had a short clip of an interview with water baliff Alex Campbell, who said he saw Nessie (this interview circa 1980?) 18 times at the time. He talked of one sighting that was co-seen with a policeman, and they both heard the creature breathing multiple times (it had surfaced near their boat). Campbell described it like a horse breathing after running a race. If this is an accurate recollection, this would rule out amphibians and fish, including eels. It would also indicate it is an air-breathing creature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anything was seen during the "breathing" story so not all neatly tied up.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, there was a similar story I read one time, somewhere of fishermen out in the loch at night when they heard a heavy breathing, or snorting. Then there is the Arthur Kopit experience of hearing an asthmatic Nessie. LOL

      Delete
    3. Amphibians breath too..that's why they are amphibian.

      Delete
  18. This one managed to sneak into The Official Loch Ness Monster Registry. As the eyewitness put it "The lump appeared to be boxy in shape and about the size of a football" Boxy and the size of a football...hmm, okay. When were they supposed to start checking for "Clear facial features"?

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/sixth-nessie-sighting-of-2022-recorded/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boxy sounds like a water tank:)

      Delete
    2. What part of the loch was this box type photograph taken?

      Delete
    3. LOL I thought the same thing and was going to make a quip about Roy's water tank, but I didn't want to get him riled up.

      Delete
    4. Hmm a boxy shaped object not far from the horseshoe scree????? (not far from Invermoriston) Lol.. Who wud of thought it lol.... Bobbing up and down it says lol.. Cheers

      Delete
    5. LOL, two years on the Loch Ness Tank defies hunters submerging and reappearing multiple times, sinking without trace back down to hundreds of feet below, biding its time for the next session on the surface. Who needs animate objects with such versatile plastic and metal?

      Delete
    6. Nessie is a shapeshifter maybe?

      Delete
    7. You mean shape-shift into a water tank?

      Delete
    8. John ud never get me riled up old pal haha! I enjoy the mystery without bin as dour and serious as others lol.. Evading the hunters eh GB? What hunters?? Lol..

      Delete
    9. And the boxy comment was in jest! No I don't think the latest sighting is the IBC tank. ...that is deep down on the bottom of Loch Ness hence why it's never bin found washed up!!!! And by the sound of the latest sighting the woman doesn't even believe it was alive anyway lol.. Boxy shaped bobbin up and down? I'm surprised this sighting made it on to the nessie official list of sightings... Cheers

      Delete
    10. Starting to think the Hugh Gray photo clearly shows a water tank lol

      Delete
    11. Yeah, now every sighting is gonna look boxy. I think we've just created a monster, Nessie the Water Tank Monster. From humps to blobs to boxy. "Hey mate, I just saw the monster" - "Are you sure it wasn't the water tank?" LOL

      Delete
  19. Well John, sonar contacts do nothing for me at all. It is a bit unusual, to say the least, that this F10 doesn't excite the interest. Demolished by the arch sceptics as usual.
    If the object was a boat why would 'a great disturbance be caused 'upon entering the water? A stick figured man beside a dark object yet suddenly the dark object becomes the man?? Too many inconsistencies here to disregard the large creature hauling itself ashore as originally reported. I think you're long enough around to know that the arch sceptics will NEVER acknowledge the existence of large unidentified creatures in Loch Ness.
    Try asking them their opinion about the numerous,multi person sightings by Mrs Cary and family.
    What about the Rowe photo at the fish farm?
    How about the Finlay's sighting or other land incidents as outlined in Roland's book?
    The truth is as long as contributers here rely on the arch sceptics as the definitive font of all knowledge then the truth will never be established.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I would like to see the film too, phoenix but monster men like Roy Mackal saw it and labelled it inconclusive and Ted Holiday didn't deem it as impressive. But still like to see it.

      Delete
    3. Hi PM, just to be clear, I also found the "great disturbance" description rather odd if it was just a man entering the water. Maybe it was just Biddy's perception. The dark object I would interpret as a large tree stump or log as depicted in the crude sketch. There was some mention of a dark cylindrical object by some observers, so maybe log? I too would like to see the film, to definitely put this matter to rest, but that seems like a long shot.

      Delete
    4. With the type of sonar used at Lake Champlain, for example, it appears you can get an instant readout and image of a whole creature while it's mobile. That's a big deal. Maybe I'm wrong, so I expect Roland's upcoming post to be quite edifying.

      Delete
  20. They may be given enough time. How old are you? Lol

    ReplyDelete
  21. That would be nice. But if there is nothing to see there, what's the point other than curiosity. Not holding my breath, I'm long in the tooth and don't ever expect to know the real truth about Bigfoot, Ufos, the JFK assassination or maybe even the LNM.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Typical. Insults not answers!! Trouble is we can't have a grown up discussion when we disagree with ur opinions Can we???.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ah well I will end my water tank story.. Tried to warn you but to no avail lol.. I dont care that you think I'm a liar... Im quite sure Mr Feltham doesn't think that and does indeed think someone told me about it! Yes he might not believe or you that these contacts are a tank and they are indeed a large creature then fair enuf.. I'm not so sure lol.. No harm done apart from calling my daughter a liar.. Tut tut that was low!! A yway last on the tank and I await the next bit of evidence to come our way.. Oh and I'm still waiting my answer on the sonar readings? Seriously I'd like to know... How did they get a 15 to 20 ft length and how do they know it was animate.. If I get a good answer in open to change my mind.. Until then it's a water tank and it's still in the loch... Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one mentioned your daughter - you said a local told you about this tank. There is two parts to this tale - was there a tank which dropped into the canal and secondly has it anything to do with deep mid water sonar contact?. To me it is a no and a no, but more a important no for the second.

      Delete
    2. They are not 'mid' water targets though.. there is my problem! I saw more latest contacts on my trip this year and they are all on the bottom or just off the bottom! I've never seen that before and so many in a short space of time! I was already dubious before I heard about the water tank going in! Two and two together I made five!! And with still no evidence of how sonar gets a 15 to 20 ft size and proof it's animate then I'm sticking with the tank! Let's not forget about all the work carried out in invermoriston and Fort augustus canal prior to these contacts! Lots of things wud of ended up in the loch! My opinion anyway.. Cheers

      Delete
  24. I subscribe to Eoin's YouTube Channel and get notifications. This is his latest. A giant eel 20 to 30 ft long, or so he claims. Screenshot only. That is one big ee! If that's what it is. At this point I don't care if the LNM is and has been a giant eel, just prove it. But then all the fun is taken out of this mystery. Who wants a giant, slimey, stinky eel to be Nessie. Crap!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aJUf-OwKgk&ab_channel=EoinFagan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear oh dear. Well I will say that the humps he used to report sticking out of Urquhart Bay waters have gone. It is now just flat lines of water.

      Delete
    2. They were blobs remember? I could accept well defined humps as evidence. All in fun Eoin, keep looking.

      Delete
    3. That's rich coming from you. You agreed with your pal Steve earlier that there are no shoals of fish in Loch Ness, though you explained my sighting at the Clansman on the new cam on the 6th of September as a shoal of fish. By the way how is Steve's petition going? hmm mustn't be going too well when you have nobody singing from the rafters about it. What's that song called by Roxy Music, oh yah Jealous Guy, well that song sums up Mr Feltham.

      Delete
    4. This looks like what Eoin may have seen. Standing wave?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FysFIh7psSM&ab_channel=DavidElder

      Delete
    5. A Giant rel would show its dorsal fin...but a giant eel without a dorsal fin wouldnt.I bet its Roys Elongated Water Tank.

      Delete
    6. Cud be poofy's plesiosaur??

      Delete
    7. Hi John, waves don't dissipate in 30 to 40 seconds, you could have waves going on for over half an hour before they dissipate.

      Delete
    8. Hi GB, I don't take well to been patronised by you or anyone else. It is hardly my fault that you have not seen the LNM in all the years you are running camera's up there. Don't take it out in me.

      Delete
    9. Eoin, show me where I use the word "shoal".

      Delete
    10. Stating that your webcam shots show nothing is hardly patronising, the rate at which you churn them out is a major clue as to their value. When are you going to produce a double hump, a long neck or some major thrashing of the water? I get pictures like this all the time on the trap cameras, they all get deleted as non-events.

      Delete
    11. Hi Eoin, sorry I brought it up. I wasn't there and didn't see what you saw. If you say it's a giant eel, I'll take your word for it. Besides, you didn't say it was the LNM. If there's something giant lurking in the loch, it can't be a giant salmon!

      Delete
    12. GB Which famous person brought Nessie to the world stage, St Columba, you need Faith, and as far as I'am concerned that is how I acquire images. What is wrong with the world today there is a lack of faith in it and that is why bad and evil things happen in it.

      Delete
    13. Not like your man to get something completely wrong....

      "By the way how is Steve's petition going?"

      That petition is nothing whatsoever to do with me, I haven't even signed it yet.

      In fact I can't remember the last time I passed any comments on his nonsense, & until he comes up with anything remotely interesting I see no point in discussing his back catalogue at all.

      Any progress on your Adrian shine piece yet Roland?

      Delete
    14. Can i just double check this statement please, have I read this right....

      ".... you need Faith, and as far as I'am concerned that is how I acquire images"

      Are you now claiming that God helps you to see things that you believe are Nessie? Is that what you're saying?

      Delete
    15. Eoin, faith may be good for perseverance, but extrapolating from a ripple of water to a giant eel is as big a leap of faith as I have seen in a while.

      Delete
    16. Steve Feltham, says the Petition has nothing got to do with him? it has everything got to do with him. The Falkirk Boys put up an image first on their petition that wasn't even a webcam image, showed exactly what their knowledge of the webcam sightings were, nothing.You Steve directed them what to put up, you also gave them a platform to advertise it through your facebook page and encouraged it. It the petition has more to do with you than anyone else, and you hide behind the Falkirk boys, instead of been man enough to put your own name on the petition. The world opinion has answered your call, nobody shares your views, get over it, and move on.

      Delete
    17. Roland hasn't seen the LNM yet? Eoin, neither have you.

      The world opinion has answered? Nobody shares Steve's views? Eoin, seriously, what are you smoking? The new webcams and those who run it clearly do and everyone else who challenges these ridiculous claims of yours.

      Delete
    18. That is why the people that run the webcams introduced such stringent rules on what constitutes a sighting. Primerily to stop you bombarding them with a relentless scream of nonsense. Everybody is fed up with it, your making the webcams, and the mystery into a laughing stock, not just yourself.

      Delete
  25. Back to the F10 film, at the risk of beating a dead horse. I had another conversation with Dick Raynor and he says that in going through his archives, he is “coming across some conflicting material regarding the June 6 1963 incident. More than one Sighting Report written, presumably, on the day mentions 'man' and 'boat', while David James writes a different version in his "Loch Ness Investigation" booklet” I then tell Dick that I am conflicted. One observation and the prevailing version is of a “large cylindrical object and serpentine head and neck” and then you have Biddy Hall's report stating a possible man by, or in a boat and also other reports claiming “man and boat” I have to make a correction, in the text of Biddy's report I posted a few days ago. In a typewritten document Dick provide to me, Biddy first sighted activity across the loch WITHOUT binoculars. So she had excellent eyesight! Also, instead of great "disturbance", it is actually quoted as great "turbulence", not that it makes a big difference.

    What to believe? The best that Dick could offer to me is that he has presented me with the basic old info and that it is up to me to form my own conclusions. So, where does that leave us? Simple, just form you own conclusions. In lieu of a definitive film, that is all we can do.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here's a photo with a face (Ogopogo). I don't buy the talking head "expert"'s verdict of a water fowl. Perhaps the two snorkles is how these animals normally breath; up near the surface without showing their body... https://globalnews.ca/news/9211632/ogopogo-or-unusually-large-bird-kelowna-couple-spots-something-strange-beneath-the-waves/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating picture, Olrik. Reminded me of a fox's face for some reason. Also reminded me of the Jon Rowe Nessie photo from 2011.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I saw this earlier today. Do those look like waterfowl feet? Blow the photo up to 100% and I could swear I see teeth. And nodules. And gill-like protrusions. Almost hope it is a bird, otherwise that thing is a gnarly nightmare.

      Delete
    3. I enlarged the image as much as I could. Yes, you can see hints of eyes and a snouty, furry face on a head with horns. Looks fake and artificial. Somewhere there's a monster prop missing a head. LOL

      Delete
    4. The Rowe pic GB! Two lumps in the water? The fake face in Olrick's link has more character than those lumps. LOL

      Delete
    5. Very unusual photo.
      It's definitely like a fox head but the two protrusions rule this out.
      I reject the "expert" who says it's a bird or fowl. Making himself look stupid.

      Delete
    6. The Jon Rowe pic has to be one of the best of all time...it does have a rather 'crocodillian' look about it which is quite intriguing.

      Delete
    7. Peter Jackson needs to check his studio's prop room to see if Smaug is missing.

      Delete
    8. It still looks like a fox to me. It is curious it was still there when they went back to look at it.

      Delete
    9. Yes, it looks like the silhouette of a fox's face, perhaps by identifying the sides of the "face" with the hair on the cheeks of a fox. It may be a pareidolia that makes us see a fox-like head.

      Anyway, I agree that it is strange or at least curious, that he was still in the same place. It would be interesting to have more information. Any movement of the object? Was it stationary and unaffected by waves? Estimated size? Approximate depth where the photo of the object was taken?

      I don't know what it is, but I confess to being totally UNABLE to see any kind of bird, as Adam Benedict says (in fact, I do think I see teeth, as Ron says), no matter how much I zoom in on my PC.And, of course, I agree that Jon Rowe's photography jumps to first line here.

      B.

      Delete
    10. Man-made or real? I'm on the fence about this one. But horns have been reported in several cases. Found this article on Irish horse eels, the account of Lough Nahooin mentions horn-like projections. (apologies if you've all read this article before):
      http://www.dickraynor.co.uk/connemara.htm

      Delete
    11. Nothing has snapped into focus that would clue me it's a bird. Rather, lots of un-birdlike features, which may be pareidolia. Then again . . . I don't know who Adam Benedict is. He should outline what he sees in the image and maybe it'll finally pop into view. Otherwise, when will the real marine-life experts enter the discussion?

      Delete
    12. Woah, that is gnarly. I dont get how its a water bird, if I ever saw a duck / goose / swan (plenty of them at a wee pond near my house) that looked like that, I would be getting the 'flock' outta there.

      There have been plenty of sightings of nessie attributing horns there too, in fact, the gargoyle face picture springs to mind, looks quite like that to me.

      Delete
    13. I think the "Gargoyle" head turned out to be a tree stump. Is that right, anybody? The Greta Finlay sighting comes to mind. She reported tubes or stalks.

      Delete
    14. Quite right on both counts John...love the Greta Finlay (and son!) sighting...believe Adrian Shine thought it was one of those amazing underwater swimming deer! 😂😂

      Delete
    15. Ha Ha! And I'm sure Dick Raynor would have some alternative explanation. But you know, Dick made a surprising revelation to me in our conversations. He said he is not so much against the existence of Nessie, whatever she may turn out to be, but just offering other explanations for the evidence so far presented. I'm sure Dick won't mind me revealing this astounding news, else he would have told me not to tell anyone and that would be deception and Dick is not like that. Maybe Dick is really a believer that hasn't come out of the closet yet?

      Delete
    16. Since this is Okanagan, not Ness, we may be talking apples and oranges. Yet there seems to be at least some broad similarity. And not just being blind-date ugly.

      Delete
    17. What I'd like to know is, was there any suggestion of a body trailing behind the "head"? Someone should ask that couple a few more questions!

      Delete
    18. In this reddit thread, someone says it's a bird and tries to explain it... maybe it's true, but honestly, I still can't see it.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/comments/y8pr3m/i_feel_that_the_recent_photo_of_ogopogo_is_just_a/

      Greetings.B.

      Delete
    19. That's ridiculous, no bird has a face like that.

      Delete
    20. Okay, finally somebody made an outline and the image snapped into focus. It's a dog with a stick in its mouth swimming toward the camera.

      Seriously, I see what those thinking it's a bird are seeing, but it's so vague it's a non-starter. Fake, until the marine experts say otherwise.

      Delete
    21. I think its Roy's Water Tank with algae growth and expulsive flagellents to propel it.

      Delete
  27. A water dragon with fins. Or a hoax from a fan of The House of the Dragon or Game of Thrones. If lake or sea monsters really exist, I'd wager none of them are built for beauty.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The photo is interesting but is it just me or do the points on the horns look manufactured? Or is that just because they're unusual in shape and my mind is playing tricks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, everything about this screams fake to me.

      Delete
    2. Its got photoshop-like wave swirls directly above itself when you expand the image. Looks like the painting of the Lake Von monster..( dragon).
      Also the witness says its 3 feet between the horns!! On the otherhand, andrew bennett of sunnyokanagan.com shows baby ogo's which are orange, and hide among the autumn orange leaves until old enough to get to the lake. And a some photos show a red/ orange ogopogo..so i dont know.

      Delete
  29. I'm surprised no one has made a comparison to the Jonathan Bright photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That did cross my mind. Look at this. They've teased a face out of it. Pareidolia. LOL

      https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/loch-ness-monster-new-picture-4586604

      Delete
  30. Hmm...yeah, I don't know either. Orange baby Ogopogos and red/orange Ogopogo. Can you provide a direct link to these photos of orange Ogopogos? Otherwise, I call BS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go to www.sunnyokanagan.com and email andrew Bennett he will send you the photos which show baby ogos the color of maple leafs during autumn..ogopogo is some kind of lizard- amphibian whoch has several body shapes during its growth cycle..and sexual dymorphism too.It can go on land with ease too..moving tapidly and has eaten people.
      Big ones reach over 50 feet w 3 foot thick.

      Delete
    2. It eats people too! I am on it! Right away!...Yeah right.

      Delete
    3. Ridicule all you want..but ogopogos have taken henry murdoch 1938 and alan skarbos son..maby you should investigate before condeming it..

      Delete
    4. Heres the link..email andrew bennett for the photos of https://sunnyokanagan.com/ogopogo/index.html

      Delete
    5. No thanks. he probably wants money for phoney pics. He also claims Ogopogo can fly. Orange flying Ogopogos... Okay... that does it for me.

      Delete
    6. Those photos are real.i have them.
      As for the flying..that i dont understand..but there have been flying serpents seen by people throughout time..as for the other photos , obviously they are not photoshopped and you have a bias.

      Delete
    7. 15 to 20 ft man eating plesiosaur???? Lol

      Delete
    8. Its not at all a plesiosaur..in fact it appears to be more like a basilosaurus an ancient whale. But many have said it's reptilian appearing..it has a snakelike body and some photos show a strong front articulated fin/leg..its been seen on land as a juvinile form and was 6 feet high with a rounded stubby nose like a frog moving fast up a boat ramp into a tall grass pasture with catipillar like movement..witness said it looked healthy and like it fed on fish- " boy did it move!" She said.

      Delete
    9. The ogopogos have been reported up to 80 feet in length..recently a 50 footer was seen from a penthouse apt stretched out with a girth of 3-5 feet.

      Delete
    10. @poofy ... I am convinced Ogopogo is Zuegladon Whales. Basilasuarsus is newish name but I don't think it matches. The two pictures I saw of an adult and juvenile blew me away. Strangest looking creatures I've ever seen. A world class swimmer swam with them toward Rattlesnake Island. He was quite frightened but just kept going. They never messed with him. It was two of them. Faces looked like rugby ball. Bodies were whale like but mottled. Very long. Can't re find the story on internet.

      Delete
  31. I don't think those are horns but breathing tubes or snorkels. The animals may breath exactly as shown lying quietly near the water surface with just the snorkels exposed.
    As far as this being unrelated to the LNM, I disagree. There are lake monsters reported in freshwater lakes in northern latitudes around the world, so we may be seeing a similar or related species. Even if not the same animal, if the existence of an unknown species was finally proven in one lake it would provide needed credibility and a spur for research in Loch Ness and other locations...

    ReplyDelete
  32. While Steve Feltham has been hogging the spotlight as the longest on site dedicated Nessie hunter for the past 30 years, Eoin O'Faodhagain has been getting his share of attention lately as the most persistent Webcam virtual Nessie hunter. Will he still be at it after 30 years, or will his 15 minutes of fame soon be over? Only time will tell.

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/watch-nessie-spotted-again-on-new-webcam/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm looking at the Shoreland cam RIGHT NOW and also seeing lots of dark "anomalies" appear for a second on the water then disappear. The wind conditions are also exactly the same as on the picture in the link. When there is a breeze, there will be patterns of ruffled water (so ok, not a wave per se). I've taken loads of snaps like this, they all get deleted!

      Delete
    2. I think the difference is Ken, that you don't then go through all your photographs looking for the one that you think you can get away with, and then once you have found one that you think might work you don't email the press with it. Unfortunately in these days of 24hr rolling news and clickbait they historically have printed it, but luckily even those journalists now say they are getting bored of it.

      Delete
    3. Hi John, I saw the LNM live at the Loch in 1987, I think my 15 minutes of fame has gone on a lot longer than that other guy you mentioned, and by the way, you should ask him how is his silly prank of a petition is getting on. Maybe somebody should petition the owner of Dores Inn, to have Mr Feltham and his wanderly wagon removed from his perch at the beach on this, majestic of sites.

      Delete
    4. More ogopogo
      https://ogopogoquest.com/sightings-most-recent.php

      Delete
    5. Read the comments on the coast ro coast article John, nobody is falling for it.

      Delete
    6. Eoin, leave steve alone.he brings more to the dores then the dores does to him!

      Delete
    7. John, Eoin will still be at in in 30 years only if the media are still publishing his ripples in 2052. I am not dissuading him from keeping up the webcam watch - just ditch these useless pictures of water ripples which somehow translate into 30 foot eels! Most of the new webcams are set up for significant close ups of humps, long necks, etc. Where are these images, Eoin?!

      Delete
  33. If you are all set up watching the webcams with your camera at the ready & you spot something that you believe is mysterious, surely you grab your camera and take a heap of photos of what ever it is before it disappears? (or you could use the screen save option of course).
    so, I would really like to see the photos that were taken either side of the image that got published. Or have they been deleted?
    I don't think I would delete them if they were taken a split second before or after the picture that I think is of Nessie.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eoin, I have to think that if you're bringing God into the debate, then you've definitely lost the plot. 😐

    ReplyDelete
  35. At this point, I don't care who snaps that game-changing photo with "clear facial features" ;). Whether it's Eoin, Roland, Steve Feltham or some random lucky tourist. If (when?) that happens, we're all winners!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I saw the latest The Unexplaianed on the History Channel "Real Life Monsters" episode. On the LNM segment they had Tricky Ricky Phillips going on about his infamous hoax pic as if it was genuine. Can you believe that guy! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  37. I've said it so many times, if Eoin truly believes that there's something lurking within Loch Ness then he clearly doesn't actually care. Not once has he acknowledged the damage he's done, he's not at all interested in solving the mystery and only cares about having his name in the paper.

    He really doesn't understand that every single time he puts a claim in the bag he's lowering the chances of future expeditions that actually might have some money or funding behind it for a serious 'hunt' and search.

    Eoin, stop ignoring those who have spent years and countless hours on-site at the Loch. As for your reference to St Columba, you're looking in the wrong location, as the encounter took place in the River Ness and not in the Loch. So from a certain point of view, you've actually just shot yourself in the foot. Perhaps you should turn your focus on the river rather than the Loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AR, stop whinging like a Baby and grow up

      Delete
    2. Eoin, when you stop taking pictures of waves, ripples, windrows, kayaks and shadows, then I'll happily stop but until then I will continue to challenge you and each claim you make. It's honestly astonishing that you can't see the serious harm you're causing to credibility. You haven't once stepped back to view it all from a different perspective.

      I understand you're not local and aren't able to visit the Loch frequently but when you do make it over you'll see for yourself that the claims you're making are nothing more than natural phenomena and natural behaviour of the water caused by the elements. You are more than welcome to view all the pictures and videos on the LNE Group page as you will see very similar activity. These shapes and shadows can easily fool a person while actually being present at the Loch and seeing it all with your own eyes but if you throw a webcam into the mix then it's even harder to identify and because of that you believe that you're seeing a solid object.

      Delete
  38. Ok,tried posting this yesterday but there was some glitch (hoodoo?). No game-changer but saw something Saturday this morning on the Shoreland cam.
    THe water was smooth like glass. At 08:30 (Loch time) a black bump appeared by the distant shore. I thought it was yet another reflection, when it suddenly took off with speed, causing water disturbance. It was close to the edge of the screen and gone in a sec, so only got one pic.
    Alas, the distance is too great and the pic is useless! Too big for waterfowl? Maybe a small motorboat or jetski which I hadn't seen until it turned into profile? 
    Don't worry, I'm not calling any journalists just yet! ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trouble with the shoreline Webcam is its not very good! Not as good as the clansman one and others.. Pity..as I do think these new ones are a big step up!.. Cheers

      Delete
  39. I don't want to dwell here too much on Eoin because I do feel that all that motivates him is being talked about, but this detail should be considered when judging the stuff he churns out.
    When there was only the old webcam he could take a screen grab and create a possible sighting, the quality of the camera was so poor that the result would always be eminently debatable. Boats would appear to disappear, paddleboards would look like humps. It was really hard to tell what things were. Mundane objects could be deceptive .
    Now the five new webcams have come along and its a completely different story. Images a generally crystal clear and it's easy to zoom in and identify what you are looking at.
    This has posed a bit of a problem for Eoin because getting something that the papers will be interested in is very much harder.
    So what has been his solution?
    He has strangely unlearnt or 'forgotten' how to take a screen grab, and gone back to photographing his computer screen with his phone camera, thus reducing the quality of the image saficiently enough to make his sighting eminently debatable again.
    And then as I've suggested earlier only promoting the most debatable image from a sequence of snaps, the one that makes the wave look most like Nessie.
    Otherwise why the retrograde step back to photographing his screen.?

    ReplyDelete
  40. .... Actually thinking more about this, I don't understand why he would choose to have his phone set to take photographs not video?
    It would be a great deal easier to identify whatever it is if it were recorded as video, a wave would quite clearly show as a wave.
    What a pity he only chose to take stills, thus making it so much harder to identify.
    Strange that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Kinda feel bad about bringing attention to Eoin. But what has been said is very true as far as doing damage and hurting credibility in the quest to attain hard evidence. Although I think he acts in good faith with no intention to deceive when he believes he has something to show. I see a lot of this stuff on YouTube with people claiming to have captured the "Real" LNM when all it is are natural events caused by waves or other environmental effects. And this is not wholly his fault, as the sensationalist media will jump at the slightest hint of anything having to do with a perceived sighting and run with it. Eoin, see this not as condemnation, but as constructive criticisms. And keep watching, you are our eyes. Nobody is as dedicated, persistent and patient as you are at staring at a webcam screen. And who knows, maybe one of these days you WILL capture the long awaited, no doubt about it long neck and hump. And as these new webcams are of better resolution it will not be the indistinguishable blobs we've all been accustomed and disillusioned with in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Did you all see the article about the woman from Australia who has 'solved' the riddle of Nessie?

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/loch-ness-monster-mystery-solved-28222338

    So, there we go. All solved. Nothign to see here.....

    Steve F, you can return to civilisation, Roland, pack up the site and lets all move on :)

    (Honestly, why do crackpots like this get given the time of day by the media??)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The media don't care one way or the other it's all just clickbait to them. We are the filter.

      Delete
    2. http://sunnyokanagan.com/ogopogo/CreviceLog1za2aafacdp.html photos of ogopogo on land nursing babies (!!)

      Delete
    3. You would have to be especially stupid to think that dead upright tree is a monster with babies. Utter nonsense.

      Delete
    4. Part of its a tree.the other part is a reptile with 2 eyes..do trees come w eyes?

      Delete
    5. Wow. You are either gullible in big flashing neon lights or you are having us on. It is ALL tree.

      Delete
  43. LOL That's the silliest thing I've heard so far. But she was talking about the Surgeons pic and we all know that's a hoax, so can we really take her seriously? So, you mean Steve wasted away half his life all alone in that van for nothing! What a waste. And Roland will have to concede there's nothing there and stick to writing about the myth of the Kelpie and start debunking all the classic photos he thinks are the real thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we are 'pretty sure' its a hoax - There's still some that hold onto a glimmer of hope that potentially the best photo ever of our Nessie is real and that the hoax was the admission of a hoax ;)

      Delete
    2. Oh yeah, I'm sure there are still people who believe it's the real McCoy. I think the cryptozoologist Karl Shuker thinks exactly that.

      Delete
    3. I guess you think its hoax eh john?

      Delete
    4. Yes, Pooffy, john, Jesusfan, or who ever the hell you are.

      Delete
  44. I think everything that should be said about Eoin's webcam shots has been said. So no more or it will just roll on ad nauseum. The story above about the woman and the Surgeon's Photo sums up the current penchant for social media to print crap so long as the click counter keeps going up.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yep, I'm bored of that chat too now. Let's move on.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I am surprised there is no camera covering Urquhart Bay, was there a problem installing a camera there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it is under the supervision of the local authorities and they won't allow that? But yes that would be an ideal place for a camera.

      Delete
  47. Yes. I have been checking out the new webcams, and have enjoyed it. Now I can do my monster hunting at home, although hopefully I will retire in a few months and take an extended vacation to Scotland and Loch Ness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if you never see Nessie, Loch Ness is a beautiful area. Ive been there many times both for work and for leisure & always enjoy the view.

      Delete
    2. I would love to see the place, even without a sighting. What are the odds? It's on my fantasy bucket list. I might scrounge up the money to make it happen before I kick the bucket.

      Delete
    3. True. Even if I don't see anything, I will be happy. I did a school project on the LNM as a kid in 1975 (cut classic pictures out of my books on nessie) and I have been hooked ever since. Just to be there in person would be enough.

      Delete
    4. Whereabouts in the world are you John / Bruce?

      Delete
    5. Nice.....Especially California - Always wanted to visis there. Im just outside of Glasgow myself.

      Delete
  48. Here's the video story of the couple who took the Ogopogo head pic. You'll be surprised at what the "expert" thinks it is.

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/video-legendary-lake-monster-ogopogo-photographed-by-canadian-couple/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I do not concur with the expert guy. Looks like floating wood to me.

      Delete
    2. Coast to coast, and george snoory are a joke when it comes to credibility.
      The pic looks photoshopped and should be photoshopped software cleared. Otherwise it looks like the turkish painting of the lake van monster..

      Delete
    3. Art Bell was better, but what do you expect from a paranormal show. You can't believe everything.

      Delete
  49. Hi John and Bruce thanks for your replys. Urquhart Castle site seems to be run by an organisation called HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SCOTLAND (maybe they don't want to be associated with the Nessie legend). I don't know if they were approached about installing a camera but I would have thought it would have given a lot of publicity and increased visitor numbers to the Castle.

    I was on a Coach trip about 6 years ago and we stopped off at Fort Augustus only for about an hour. I had a cup of tea and sandwiches on the banks of Borlum Bay it was very pleasant but I didn't see Nessie.

    I am in the UK, north east of England.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup a camera atop of the castle directed towards Urquhart Bay would be ideal. That's where Bob Rines says he saw a gray hump.

      Delete
  50. Ha Ha! I should be so fortunate to have a beach house. I'll trade you my crime-ridden concrete unban jungle for your quaint Scottish town. Is that fair enough?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I can vouch for the Ness!! Lovely chilled place... Roll on January so I can book my next cabin holiday xx. .cheers

    ReplyDelete