tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post2709559015297180422..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: More on the Jennifer Bruce PhotographGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-81643564626071165922016-05-12T10:43:04.780-07:002016-05-12T10:43:04.780-07:00I deal with photos every day, and although I have ...I deal with photos every day, and although I have always worked in digital, many of the same attributes apply. The whole photo is slightly soft from where I'm sitting. I can see no evidence of motion blur on the object in question. A poor quality lens can cause softness. Certain apertures can cause softness. All in one instant cameras of this era were a bit notorious for being soft. Possibly the film, or poor storage of the film, or the developing could cause softness.<br />On a lot of these camera there was no autofocus, just a fixed aperture that would get everything 'in focus', or as near as dammit. The aperture needed for a 35mm camera to get all in focus would be quite small indeed, and would certainly lend itself to motion blur if there was any form of rapid motion (even on a sunny day). That's accepting that the film is correct for outdoor use.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28559395983937827892013-09-07T03:26:09.616-07:002013-09-07T03:26:09.616-07:00Thw moving wings may be more distorted as they mov...Thw moving wings may be more distorted as they move up and down, but that would not extend the apparent length of the wing in the picture. Also why is the so called wing joint not all over the place in the image as a result of the wing movement? It would also move up and down.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-11892777481988262572013-09-05T11:19:37.402-07:002013-09-05T11:19:37.402-07:00Here's another clue for you all - one more att...Here's another clue for you all - one more attempt to convince you this is a bird, based on something you wrote:<br /><br /> "If a long exposure time could produce such a dramatic effect in the vertical plane on the alleged wing, we should also see a similar dramatic effect on the gull body (i.e. it would also extend by a similar amount in the vertical plane). No such effect is visible."<br /><br />Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. Yes, the wings are attached to the body, which is moving across the frame. But the wings themselves are also moving, so of course the wings would be more distorted than the body they are attached to. Add a small amount of camera movement, probably due to a slightly longer exposure, and you have the image in the Bruce photo.hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-59237529077633565462013-09-03T07:18:21.683-07:002013-09-03T07:18:21.683-07:00The photo and comment is up on the Great Loch Ness...The photo and comment is up on the Great Loch Ness Debate Facebook page - try under Posts By Others. My other problem with the Bruce photo being of something in the water is that there really isn't any indication that that thing is in the water. If that rather long neck had just been quickly thrust up there should be much more of a disturbance - moving that much neck out of the water and whipping it around to create that profile should not only something at the surface but there should be water falling off it and probably even flying off in all directions. What would happen if you were to stand up quickly while in a pool and contort your body like that then drop back under water? This object looks dry - not shiny and wet. I've been hoping for a Lake Monster to be found for 40 years, and I don't think this is one.hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-47328931812242003392013-09-03T06:49:36.081-07:002013-09-03T06:49:36.081-07:00I just saw a photo on facebook which I don't t...I just saw a photo on facebook which I don't think I can post here, but I should be able to share on the Great Loch Ness Debate page...it is pertinent to this discussion. Meet me over there in a little while...hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-16982519075909172842013-09-02T15:00:08.670-07:002013-09-02T15:00:08.670-07:00I don't agree. If a long exposure time could p...I don't agree. If a long exposure time could produce such a dramatic effect in the vertical plane on the alleged wing, we should also see a similar dramatic effect on the gull body (i.e. it would also extend by a similar amount in the vertical plane). No such effect is visible.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-53443016571890537982013-09-02T14:49:17.070-07:002013-09-02T14:49:17.070-07:00It has that shape due to distortion - the castle a...It has that shape due to distortion - the castle and hills - the subject of the photo - are in focus. Even with a only slightly longer than normal exposure any object inside the focal range and moving quickly through it will not appear "normal". If the bird was moving down while flying I don't see why that image could not be attained. Add in the fact that no one saw anything unusual and there is just not much to support this photo as being of a lake monster.hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-78278647303386829202013-08-31T04:30:10.299-07:002013-08-31T04:30:10.299-07:00Sorry hopkama, wrong shape for a bird.
Sorry hopkama, wrong shape for a bird.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-73106251801235787042013-08-30T19:12:29.072-07:002013-08-30T19:12:29.072-07:00It really has to be a bird...sorry. It is much clo...It really has to be a bird...sorry. It is much closer than any other object in the frame, and it is moving rather fast - it is a flying bird, after all. Since the lens is focused on the castle yards and yards away (OK meters and meters) of course something as close and fast as this bird will leave a very distorted image. I've seen low light/long aperture shots that produce ghost like images, including a great one where a body appears headless...but if you know the conditions under which the photo was taken, and what the actual point of the photo was, these mysteries solve themselves.hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-60331051439134627962013-08-29T04:18:01.410-07:002013-08-29T04:18:01.410-07:00Interesting photo. It is worthy of study and more ...Interesting photo. It is worthy of study and more interesting than the obvious boat wake photos of recent and the mcnab old hat. tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28712441677756489152013-08-28T23:09:33.561-07:002013-08-28T23:09:33.561-07:00The object being Nessie is also a simple explanati...The object being Nessie is also a simple explanation. I just saw a few flaws and want to explore other options before completely dismissing them. Especially since I saw those difficulties with the Nessie theory I have mentioned, those being the lack of focus and the apparent lack of water disturbance. I thought of other possibilities and presented them.<br />Occam's Razor is a tool, not a rule. Sometimes the harder to explain or accept answer is the truth.<br /><br />As for what part, if it is the real deal, of Nessie this depicts I agree with you. I have been following your blog since I read about it on Cryptomundo. It makes more sense the a giant eel in this case.Motivated Adventurernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-46299906692228252502013-08-23T01:44:43.963-07:002013-08-23T01:44:43.963-07:00The issue for scepticism is Occam's Razor. A b...The issue for scepticism is Occam's Razor. A bird flying past is a simple explanation and fulfills Occam. But if further examination reveals issues and further sub-explanations have to be layered on top of the original proposal, then at what point do you discard the original theory and go and look for another one?<br /><br />I don't think that question has been properly answered by sceptics. They just keep adding on more band-aids!<br /><br />As for ripples. Clearly, the disturbance will be proportional to the speed of ascent as well as the surface area of the head-neck pushing the water away. A small head-neck will produce less ripples than a hump and the pole like head-neck sometimes reported even less. <br /><br />My own take is that if it was a Nessie, the neck could ascend as a straight erect structure but then "flop" or slightly collapse as it relaxed or prepared to submerge post-exposure.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-15372366025030457492013-08-22T22:34:48.812-07:002013-08-22T22:34:48.812-07:00GB, thanks for posting the results of the deblurri...GB, thanks for posting the results of the deblurring. I might need to invest in some of that technology, my shots tend to be a bit blurry, even when on auto. (I prefer manual but I'm still new to cameras bigger than a point and shoot. Also my SLR's auto focus is derping)<br />I do see how even if the "head" and the "neck" are separate objects that it would not match any of the supplied bird images. I have not found any bird image that matches it either, honestly I have not looked for one. Also the "neck" does appears to be too thin to be a wing. But, if this is a wing being silhouetted, we may not see the whole width due the whole light refraction/defraction/physics stuff (It's been a few years since high school. As long as you understand what I mean, I am happy).<br />However I still am not certain that the object in question is on the water. It seems the object is closer to the camera than the water which would account for the it seeming to be more blurry than the waves surrounding it.<br />Could perhaps be a spec on the lens that had not been noticed? I've done that a few times (granted, the object does seem pretty dense, making dirt on the lens less plausible than a light de-refracted string theory bird).<br />Also hard to reconcile is the lack of water disturbance near the object. Like I said before, I see the large ripple, but no other disturbance. I might be seeing that ripple because I'm looking to see it and wanting to see it.<br />But on the other hand, if this is in fact Nessie, which would be cool, who's to say she can't swan dive without a splash? The object does indeed look streamlined whatever it is.Motivated Adventurernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-26233330441008753892013-08-22T01:02:50.200-07:002013-08-22T01:02:50.200-07:00I can see a break of some description in the image...I can see a break of some description in the image but the continuity and form of the whole image suggests to me it is a defect in the image processing rather than two seperate objects are in view.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-35107782697160028452013-08-14T08:48:29.340-07:002013-08-14T08:48:29.340-07:00You're right. Looking at GB's enlargement ...You're right. Looking at GB's enlargement above of 'nessie' with a gull superimposed, the blob that appears to be the head seems to be a separate object. Instead of another buoy though, I'm thinking just a dark patch of rippled water that you can also see all over the place. Its a bird, gull or otherwise, that happened to be captured at a spot where either buoy or dark water patch gives the overall shape the appearance of a head.<br /><br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-7667113455781124062013-08-13T12:41:21.443-07:002013-08-13T12:41:21.443-07:00Is there more than one buoy out from shore? In you...Is there more than one buoy out from shore? In your first article I was inclined to believe that something odd was photographed out in the water beyond the buoy.<br /> <br />The first picture cleaned with Focus Magic immediately looked like a gull about ¾ between the photographer and the buoy when I opened it up. I’m wondering if there is another buoy beyond the one to the right of the object that the once formed the “head” of the creature in the original photo. I got curious enough to use Google maps and it looks like maybe that “head” is could be a buoy in fact it looks like there is a third buoy at the very left edge of the photo. The satellite pictures show multiple that could form a string like that; however, you have would have to know where the photographer was to match things up. The “head” also seems to have a different density than the “neck” or “gull” which seems to have blur.<br /><br />Very interesting, thanks for the Focus Magic link too.<br /><br />Lyall <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-72062758516918417002013-08-10T15:15:36.520-07:002013-08-10T15:15:36.520-07:00To me GB there's too much 'living' det...To me GB there's too much 'living' detail about its 'neck' ie its seemingly living active sinuosity in relation to its environment almost as if its disporting itself in that position due to the movement of the air the action of the water and even as if to avert its gaze from being slightly dazzled by the light.<br /><br />There's also shading and toning there hinting at some sort of muscularity as if it's having to flex different parts of itself to hold that pose.<br /><br />In other words it's not a solid static model or if it is it's been sculpted by Rodin or someone with real high level flair.<br /><br />But that also allows for another possibility it now occurs to me of say some sort of large model ship with a real fabric sail that's producing all of the effects outlined above but by the sail billowing at such an angle the illusion's been created for one brief moment of a sinewy sinuous neck writhing.<br /><br />My money's on something living though.alanborkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333017272673090593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-87357873654644894582013-08-10T07:17:23.569-07:002013-08-10T07:17:23.569-07:00Got ya.
I've gone from a youngster believing...Got ya. <br /><br />I've gone from a youngster believing 100% to my 50's disbelieving 90% but leaving 10% still open to the possibility. ;)<br /><br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-29352572148896128192013-08-09T12:01:33.471-07:002013-08-09T12:01:33.471-07:00Not argueing either way here but when I am out tak...Not argueing either way here but when I am out taking panoramas or scene shots with my camera, I rarely look at everything in the shot. I tend to be checking how it's framed - lighting - etc. I could easily have taken this shot and not noticed this - nessie or bird or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-82583023457585282402013-08-07T17:52:08.237-07:002013-08-07T17:52:08.237-07:00Thanks GB, noted.
Again, at the risk of repeating...Thanks GB, noted.<br /><br />Again, at the risk of repeating myself, because none of your handful of gull pics do not exactly match the 'nessie' image is no proof in that the image taken by Jennifer Bruce would be a totally unique one of a kind 'blurred gull' image. Of course there'd be none that'll fit perfectly, but there is enough of a resemblance to a bird in flight that having to say it must be nessie is a big stretch.<br /><br />As far as eyewitnesses go, I'm totally open to the possibility that some people saw something that was undeniable. There's Alistair Boyd famously for one, who says he witnessed a huge hump rolling over in the water. <br /><br />I tend to believe him and others. Problem is these sincere witnesses get lumped together with the mis-identifications and perhaps the tall tales told by some to keep the tourist trade alive. However, regardless of nessie rising up two feet in front of ones face, without some bit of proof it can be viewed as nothing but another anecdote<br /><br />Jon<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-30169302052168717762013-08-07T16:49:03.799-07:002013-08-07T16:49:03.799-07:00Typo - I meant "behind the object". Than...Typo - I meant "behind the object". Thanks.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-91623744927400212642013-08-07T16:43:50.788-07:002013-08-07T16:43:50.788-07:00"The sun is nearly behind the camera so the o..."The sun is nearly behind the camera so the object should be in a near silhouette."<br /><br />Umm, the castle is due south of Temple Pier. How often is the sun in the north?<br /><br />Also, a silhouette is formed where the light is behind the subject, not behind the camera, when I was at school :-)Dick Raynorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473656943198470075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-38614238276267973932013-08-07T15:42:40.884-07:002013-08-07T15:42:40.884-07:00Well, there may be reflection there but how much a...Well, there may be reflection there but how much are you expecting based on the presumed 3D shape of the object and would it be visible in such a picture? <br /><br />The sun is nearly behind the camera so the object should be in a near silhouette.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-15406634819637394862013-08-07T15:33:13.603-07:002013-08-07T15:33:13.603-07:00Jon, your observation has been added as a postscri...Jon, your observation has been added as a postscript to the article.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-37856834632138748612013-08-07T09:44:18.503-07:002013-08-07T09:44:18.503-07:00Jon:
Sounds like we're making the same argume...Jon:<br /><br />Sounds like we're making the same argument.ekmnoreply@blogger.com