tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post5342607889916660178..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: The Jennifer Bruce PhotographGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-91501749227351450052019-08-30T18:43:31.376-07:002019-08-30T18:43:31.376-07:00This is one of the more interesting photos -
and b...This is one of the more interesting photos -<br />and because of the oval disturbance in the water around it,<br />I firmly believe something sizeable is in that water.<br />RonnieJerseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06957998788321001990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-74186975358206914312016-01-10T07:01:48.057-08:002016-01-10T07:01:48.057-08:00Thanks, Martin.
Thanks, Martin.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-7760297915738322562016-01-09T14:20:34.913-08:002016-01-09T14:20:34.913-08:00It would have been pretty close to the photographe...It would have been pretty close to the photographer also, as I imagine that those fixed lenses were reasonably wide (ie, 'zoomed out', to use a a cack handed term that most non photographers would understand, in order to capture plenty of the surroundings). Objects appear small, and small objects need to be pretty close to be visible in any meaningful way. This said, the closer a left to right moving object is to the camera, the higher it's relative motion is across the field of view. And the higher the shutter speed would need to be to stop motion. Given all the (guestemated) parameters of the camera, coupled with my own knowledge of photography of animals, I don't think it is a bird in flight. Neither does my partner, although she did think that the locals may have been up to no good to extend the tourist trade, but that's another story!<br />I should try to get a light reading under the conditions that I see in the photo, but will probably need to wait to spring until those conditions exist.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-29147988342187672312016-01-09T12:06:40.366-08:002016-01-09T12:06:40.366-08:00Thanks, perhaps I will do some comparison photos o...Thanks, perhaps I will do some comparison photos of gulls next time I am there. If that was a gull moving left to right, it was very close to land, which would make me wonder if it would actually be slowing down to land, thus discounting a fast gull idea.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-4831284276485222782016-01-09T03:40:26.335-08:002016-01-09T03:40:26.335-08:00My tuppence worth. The object seems to me to be in...My tuppence worth. The object seems to me to be in the same focus as the waves around it,therefore it looks to me as if it's in the water. The object and it's surroundings are similarly slightly out of focus. The object appears to show lens blur (as it is not perfectly focused ),but not motion blur (from speed of movement). As a photographer, I am aware of bird photography and the shutter speed needed to capture a fast moving bird. Probably more than 1/1000th of a second. Myself and my partner photograph moving animals for a living, and as a hobby.<br />The day seems fairly dull, and the photo seems to have been taken with a standard camera of that era. I'm not an expert in that tech, but I'm given to believing that most of these cameras had no auto focus, or no ability for the user to focus them. They used a small lens with a fairly small aperture to keep everything in focus. This would mean, especially on a dull day, that the amount of light captured by such a camera/lens would be insufficient to stop the motion of a quickly moving animal. Without extra information about camera/lens etc, it is hard to tell. But it's my best guess based on the information presented. To me it certainly does not appear to be a bird based on those thoughts. And if it's a fake, it's an excellent one.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-46975442837681218362014-01-18T09:30:42.841-08:002014-01-18T09:30:42.841-08:00The JB photo is clearly taken through a lens with ...The JB photo is clearly taken through a lens with a shorter focal length than the boat one - you can tell this because the central portion of the distant mountains appears bigger in the boat photo. I therefore don't think you can overlay the images and say they're the same distance, nor can you say the perspective is the same. Interesting attempt, flawed in my view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71855742562230626492013-07-04T05:06:42.520-07:002013-07-04T05:06:42.520-07:00I'll do a follow up article based on your feed...I'll do a follow up article based on your feedback, chaps.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-41681258280333143562013-06-29T22:22:25.764-07:002013-06-29T22:22:25.764-07:00Really enjoy this site. If anything, at least it k...Really enjoy this site. If anything, at least it keeps the fable alive. Its good storytelling.<br /><br />I'm going to have to go with Mr Raynor's assessment of a bird caught in flight. The object doesn't look to me like its sits in the water. The density of the figure seems a bit too light for the hoped for object. By comparison, those small buoys off to the right that ARE sitting in the water, do show an image density (highlight and shadow areas) commensurate with the surroundings for the lighting conditions. <br /><br />As an aside, I read every book I could get my hands on back in the 60's and 70's nessie heyday. Of course I want there to be something there, but as much time went on, with the exception of a couple of 'gray area' sightings like the Dinsdale film, all photographic evidence appears to be hoaxes or misinterpretations. <br /><br />Oddly enough, though I live in the states, I do enjoy an active dream life and every once in a while I'm treated to a recurring scenario where I'm at Loch Ness (never actually been though) and they're always richly enjoyable. The last one I had several weeks back was a real doozie and was absolutely magnificent!<br /><br />Cheers<br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-7889922562118795482013-06-28T18:15:10.575-07:002013-06-28T18:15:10.575-07:00In my non proffessional opinion, the "neck&qu...In my non proffessional opinion, the "neck" looks out of focus. To me on my non hi-def computer screen the odject looks more blurry than the waves around it and it looks a little transparent. Assuming that it is out of focus, the object could be seen as just a little further than halfway to the water from the camera. The part that looks like a head on the object need not be part of it at all and instead be an oddly placed wave. Seeing it as a bird I see it not as directly side on but instead it is beginning a left bank. and the left wing as being the shiny spot on the bottom left or on not visible at all on the object.<br />I do see what you pointed out as a ripple but this could be looking too hard for it and I thought it strange that the waves inside the ripple did not look affected by the object. But, then again, I don't take time to sit around to throw rocks and watch ripples these days.Motivated Adventurernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-53048668708245659062013-06-28T12:18:39.770-07:002013-06-28T12:18:39.770-07:00I think I'd have to conclude that we're lo...I think I'd have to conclude that we're looking at a substantial aquatic object here rather than a bird in the water or in flight. My main qualification would be that we're looking at a head that sharpens into a bill. So what is this -- The Loch Ness Platypus?<br /><br />*AnonStg*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-46073645901653179962013-06-28T03:15:23.608-07:002013-06-28T03:15:23.608-07:00It would not surprise me if we have a boneless str...It would not surprise me if we have a boneless structure here.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-63913814502216565552013-06-27T13:15:00.195-07:002013-06-27T13:15:00.195-07:00Hi GB,
I managed to hike along the A82 without get...Hi GB,<br />I managed to hike along the A82 without getting run over, and took some snaps from the lay-by above Temple Pier. It is pretty much overgrown but I managed to find a couple of peep-holes through the foliage.<br /> <br />I attach one photo (sent via email) which I think matches the alignment of the castle with the background ridge and shoreline, showing clearly that JB was in that lay-by. If you go into Google Earth Street View you will find that the location is 57.336847 -4.444832, give or take a metre, and the ground elevation is 28 m a.s.l., making it about 12 metres above loch level. Add to that a normal persons eye-height, say 1.5 metres and you get a camera height of about 13.5 metres above loch level. <br /> <br />Regards, DickDick Raynorhttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-20272686791405779902013-06-27T11:51:56.233-07:002013-06-27T11:51:56.233-07:00I don't think any bird (certainly not any bird...I don't think any bird (certainly not any bird in Scotland) could get its wings into that configuration at any point in flight. However, what other kind of animal (fish, reptile, amphibian or mammal) could manipulate its neck in that way (if neck is, indeed, what we're looking at)?Jenny Hanivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-20441744633574847162013-06-27T07:06:55.670-07:002013-06-27T07:06:55.670-07:00Dick, the flying bird interpretation lacks credibi...Dick, the flying bird interpretation lacks credibility. It does not look like a bird, why persist with it?<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-12384709979444992592013-06-26T13:28:02.247-07:002013-06-26T13:28:02.247-07:00GB wrote - "As hinted earlier, this is the ot...GB wrote - "As hinted earlier, this is the other reason why this could not be a bird in the water as no bird at Loch Ness has a neck five feet long." But there is no reason to assume it is on the water - is is simply flying through the field of view at some distance intermediate between the water and the camera. I am working as a boat skipper from Temple Pier tomorrow and will try to take some comparison photographs, but my provisional guess is that the photo was taken from the small lay-by above the RNLI Station. I'd guess the elevation of eye-level above loch level to be around 10 metres. The alignment of the castle with the ridges beyond will make this an easy location to establish. DR Dick Raynorhttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-33932631249639170872013-06-26T03:48:08.393-07:002013-06-26T03:48:08.393-07:00Ted Holiday would love that one. A "neck"...Ted Holiday would love that one. A "neck" which siphons in air whilst distending those humps. Hmmm, interesting thought.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-9925521128462592752013-06-26T03:21:56.040-07:002013-06-26T03:21:56.040-07:00Some species of aquatic snails have extendable syp...Some species of aquatic snails have extendable syphons for extracting air from above the surface of the water. <br /><br />I wonder if here we are seeing something similar happening from an unknown and massive creature? Here is a video of an Apple Snail doing just that:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpUDW1hoBmo<br />Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-21679806382654631092013-06-25T14:48:52.771-07:002013-06-25T14:48:52.771-07:00Birds can show only their necks in the water. The ...Birds can show only their necks in the water. The point here is the neck is too thick or to put it another way, the head is too small compared to the neck for a typical bird configuration.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-83759918900781678012013-06-24T17:07:40.192-07:002013-06-24T17:07:40.192-07:00GB I looked at the pic in inverted colours and it ...GB I looked at the pic in inverted colours and it strongly resembles the sinuous outline of a bird with a flamingo like neck and a heron like beak.<br /><br />Or at least it does while one assumes it's a bird.<br /><br />In my case though I quickly began to have doubts.<br /><br />For instance the neck seems too thick for a bird unless we're talking something prehistoric because it seems too thick even for an ostrich.<br /><br />Then there's the way it sits in the water so submerged only its neck shows which usually only happens with birds as they surface whereas this particular bird seems to have no intentions of surfacing any further.<br /><br />Of course its possible as different parts of the loch rise and sink at different rates a peaking wave could obscure the creature behind it creating the optical illusion the creature concerned's lower in the water than it actually is not to mention the photographer could've simply withheld or failed to notice a moment later the bird was finally fully atop the water.<br /><br />Your data though suggesting it's dimensions're even larger than I thought make me wonder if we are indeed looking at an old fashioned serpent horn style Scandinavian type sea monster with a seahorse like head?alanborkynoreply@blogger.com