tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6774326964478848857..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: The H. L. Cockrell PhotographGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-22179797113432173302017-10-24T06:22:06.700-07:002017-10-24T06:22:06.700-07:00Dinsdale states the camera was mounted on the hel...Dinsdale states the camera was mounted on the helmet and operated by moving hismouth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16936786065268896122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-25862356304678896222016-08-26T09:12:32.700-07:002016-08-26T09:12:32.700-07:00Whatever floats your boat Roy!Whatever floats your boat Roy!Haveyouseenityet?https://www.blogger.com/profile/15691731035823935830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-43838635940673885992016-08-26T08:30:47.565-07:002016-08-26T08:30:47.565-07:00Oh, I thik we have some experience watching floati...Oh, I thik we have some experience watching floating debris, as others do here.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-40563749796517741582016-08-26T07:45:01.730-07:002016-08-26T07:45:01.730-07:00Ii dont think the hole or gap or wateva u call it ...Ii dont think the hole or gap or wateva u call it is visible more in one pic than the other cus the so called branch is Lower in the water in first pic! It is near the top of the object so Wud be visible in both pics: I agree it's prob a splash of water and I regard this as one of the better nessie pics and better than most of the other oldies! ............... More than a legend! Long live Nessie !Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609664434654510448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-52350706503801547562016-08-26T07:09:10.128-07:002016-08-26T07:09:10.128-07:00Steve Feltham is saying a Nessie story is coming o...Steve Feltham is saying a Nessie story is coming out in the Daily Mail tomorrow (Saturday). Could be good, could be nothing. We'll see.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-34985170918705764262016-08-25T09:23:31.916-07:002016-08-25T09:23:31.916-07:00I don't see any "movement" from the ...I don't see any "movement" from the stick, just parts of the water where the stick is only just breaking the surface. At these points the stick will have been gently causing the surface to break. For those unused to the behaviour of floating debris on water, an illusion of independent movement in the photos can be excused. You have now been educated, and I hope this helps..Haveyouseenityet?https://www.blogger.com/profile/15691731035823935830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-17143505017773233372016-08-25T02:11:34.247-07:002016-08-25T02:11:34.247-07:00You know, you are beginning to annoy me with your ...You know, you are beginning to annoy me with your half truths and tactics.<br /><br />Annoyed in the sense that I have to correct them and if I delete them, you'll begin to moan.<br /><br />The "mythical" shock and awe is real enough, eyewitness reports testify to that. Your illogical approach is that if you can find just one person who didn't freeze, that disproves all the others. That is nonsense. Either you are really thick at figuring out an argument or your aim is purely to be disruptive and plant doubts in peoples' minds. <br /><br />The example you give is not even a good example as the object was so far away. Please think through your answers before posting here.<br /><br />As for camera phones being the answer. I have stated elsewhere that this "solution" is more to do with quantity than quality.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-89170578953295704122016-08-25T01:59:14.055-07:002016-08-25T01:59:14.055-07:00I am not sure why the mention of the "squall&...I am not sure why the mention of the "squall" is relevant. You say it but don't explain why you say it.<br /><br />Your analysis basically is a series of gainsays summarised as "No, I think its a stick".<br /><br />It is no surprise you are hiding behind the excuse that Cockrell did all the movement as a stick is going nowhere on a calm day.<br /><br />No mention at all from you on the water disturbance around the object which suggests motion. Perhaps you being VERY familiar with water let you down on addressing that point?<br /><br />Unlike you, I actually went to the loch and conducted experiments with a similar stick. The photos look nothing like what you claim and despite my stick having a bend in it, gravity always made sure the stick was flat. You're just talking any old nonsense to get out of this.<br /><br />You'll do your time here like most of the other sceptics who think their mission is to lead us poor benighted believers into the pure light of scepticism.<br /><br />You'll fail and move on (or come back under another pseudonym). Do what you must and them go.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-41705207071268746882016-08-25T00:42:21.542-07:002016-08-25T00:42:21.542-07:00Interesting that the witness said her eyes popped ...Interesting that the witness said her eyes popped out of her head and she quickly grabbed her phone and started snapping away. No paralysis, none of the mythical "shock and awe" response.<br /><br />Camera phones really are the answer.Haveyouseenityet?https://www.blogger.com/profile/15691731035823935830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-21518164515388092892016-08-24T03:43:47.942-07:002016-08-24T03:43:47.942-07:00I guess I should address this photo and the "...I guess I should address this photo and the "snake-like head" one.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-48133830810883423422016-08-24T03:15:55.637-07:002016-08-24T03:15:55.637-07:00Ok if you'd prefer me to elaborate....
Cockre...Ok if you'd prefer me to elaborate....<br /><br />Cockrell mentioned a "squall" on what appears to be be a very calm day. He also found a stick, and that's what I see in these photos. I don't see a monster plus the stick he found, just a stick.<br /><br />I see no movement in the stick. Any change in position of the stick in relation to the background I'd put down to a combination of movement of Cockrell in relation to the stick, plus a small amount of possible drift of the stick.<br /><br />I see the "wave" you mention as far more looking like a gap under the stick. I think in the second photo this doesn't show because at the moment that was taken, less of the stick was protruding from the water. I am VERY familiar with water, and how a drifting stick in even relatively calm water will very gently present different amounts of itself above water. The small ripples of the breeze will sometimes cover more of a stick than at other moments. In fact, it would be remarkably unlikely to achieve the exact same amount of surface protrusion of a stick in these conditions in two photos. <br /><br />So in answer to your question, all I see is a stick, the same one in both photos. In one photo we see light under the stick, in the other we do not see the light because the water rippling has at that particular moment risen an inch or two in relation to the stick.<br /><br />Once again, no monster here.Haveyouseenityet?https://www.blogger.com/profile/15691731035823935830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-69460452348172648742016-08-24T02:48:56.346-07:002016-08-24T02:48:56.346-07:00I think your trashing of this photo (and hence eve...I think your trashing of this photo (and hence every eyewitness testimony) is simplistic and most likely designed to be dissuasive to others.<br /><br />"We all interpret these reports according to our own pet theories" - simply not true. If it were, I would accept every photo claiming to be Nessie as genuine. <br /><br />This boils down to two interpretations - is it an object explicable by normal phenomena or something else? Steve and I are in agreement - it shows the Loch Ness Monster. There is not enough information in the photo to identify the species, so it should go no further than that in terms of this photo.<br /><br />Your summary dismissal just really ignores everything that has been argued in the article. I have just checked your comments again and you do not actually address any of the arguments made, you just try and make up new ones against the photo being anything other than a thin stick.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-79705997905584158272016-08-24T02:25:36.781-07:002016-08-24T02:25:36.781-07:00We all interpret these reports according to our ow...We all interpret these reports according to our own pet theories. In this case sceptics see an inanimate stick, Roland sees an animate "standard" Nessie, Steve Plambeck sees a giant salamander. Sceptics see the confused nature of the report plus the picking out of the stick as indicative of no monster, Nessie advocates see no such problem; in fact they can even see these factors as supportive of a monster.<br /><br />What's clear is that we are all interpreting anything ambiguous according to what we already believe. For me that simply demonstrates how ultimately worthless anything like this report really is.Haveyouseenityet?https://www.blogger.com/profile/15691731035823935830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-25650141000847826572016-08-24T00:13:43.029-07:002016-08-24T00:13:43.029-07:00I've always taken Cockrell's own skepticis...I've always taken Cockrell's own skepticism that he may have hallucinated the whole thing UNTIL he saw his own developed photos as a good sign. It doesn't make him "weak" that he didn't believe his own eyes and thought the whole thing could temporarily be attributed to a stick he found after the main events. He had to realize as anyone should that successive, solitary, overnight floats on the Loch could lead to hallucinations in the dawn. He was an exceptionally honest witness.<br /><br />The proof isn't in his honesty though, it really is in these two photos taken together. That is no stick (least of all a 1 inch thick stick), it's moving under it's own power, and it's really too large to be any known species in the Loch. Aside from the Grey photo, these are probably the only other genuine photos we can be sure of.<br /><br />All of which implies Cockrell's verbal description of the head he saw before taking the photos was also accurate. In which case we have a bit of morphological detail that is all too often lacking in these reports.<br /><br />"A very large flat head four or five feet long and wide. About three feet astern of this, I noticed another thin line." This couldn't be an animal with a long, thin neck. This is very much in keeping with the "Great Salamander" described in some very early accounts, and consistent with head to neck proportions (4 to 3 or 5 to 3) of salamanders in general. It's also consistent with some reptiles, but the flatness would be more in line with an amphibian.Steve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-59845291808640654332016-08-21T05:28:08.886-07:002016-08-21T05:28:08.886-07:00David.....I'm sure GB is on the case.David.....I'm sure GB is on the case.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-34699566982028879772016-08-21T00:56:16.060-07:002016-08-21T00:56:16.060-07:00really good article & so much research & a...really good article & so much research & a new photo as well !!many thanks all we need now is the new book on frank searle & i'll be a happy man !!....bodge from suffolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11132211236189398270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71228352167175376232016-08-20T14:46:58.620-07:002016-08-20T14:46:58.620-07:00There is more detail here
http://www.mirror.co.uk/...There is more detail here<br />http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/holiday-snap-finally-captured-loch-8660633<br />from which it should be possible to find out where it was taken. I'm a bit mystified by the degree of zoom being used. It didn't think mobile phones could do that.David Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13590531184544289491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-61414098199009017562016-08-20T14:40:07.172-07:002016-08-20T14:40:07.172-07:00Interesting. The calm water on either side suggest...Interesting. The calm water on either side suggests it's not a boat wake. Let's hope someone knows the location it was taken from.David Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13590531184544289491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-44450129241865036212016-08-20T11:43:22.432-07:002016-08-20T11:43:22.432-07:00Here's one way of seeing the calculation. Imag...Here's one way of seeing the calculation. Imagine that the true height of the hump is h. Imagine that the height of the camera above the water is d. Now imagine that you could take a measuring stick out to the location of the object and plant it in the water so that its top is level with the camera, i.e. its height above the water is d. Imagine that we took a photo of the hump and the stick, and then measured, on the photo, the height of the hump on the photo (call it H) and the height of the top of the stick above the water (call it D). If the camera does not distort, the relative sizes of the hump and the stick will be the same on the photo as in real life, h/d = H/D, so h = d times(H/D).<br /><br />I've cheated here a bit, because in my earlier post I said we would measure D from the far shore down to the waterline (not having a measuring stick to hand). But if the far shore is very far away, the sight line from the camera to the far shore will be almost horizontal, i.e. it will be almost the same as the sight line to the top of the stick, so the error I've made will be a small one. David Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13590531184544289491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-12562578032916036112016-08-20T11:14:39.728-07:002016-08-20T11:14:39.728-07:00Glasgow Boy, the formula works with any camera, fi...Glasgow Boy, the formula works with any camera, film or digital, unless the camera distorts the image significantly. Most cameras don't unless they have a fisheye lens and then it's obvious. I don't have a link, I worked it out for myself. I'll try and find either a link or a way of explaining it.David Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13590531184544289491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-68650342025035675022016-08-20T10:29:01.018-07:002016-08-20T10:29:01.018-07:00No more comments on this contentious subject, plea...No more comments on this contentious subject, please. Also, haveyouseenit, I haven't visited the forum in question for at least 3 months. You'll just have to accept that.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-86143700237455410982016-08-20T06:40:34.476-07:002016-08-20T06:40:34.476-07:00Seems a new Nessie photo has been taken, link to c...Seems a new Nessie photo has been taken, link to coast to coast site..........<br /><br />http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/loch-ness-monster-photographed-by-vacationer/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-81550276532032237192016-08-20T03:58:58.549-07:002016-08-20T03:58:58.549-07:00Also, David, do you have a link somewhere that exp...Also, David, do you have a link somewhere that explain your height calculation technique?<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-51828951769207870222016-08-20T03:53:07.632-07:002016-08-20T03:53:07.632-07:00Ron, I don't visit the webpage where you saw t...Ron, I don't visit the webpage where you saw the "meltdown". I haven't been there for months and intend to keep it that way.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-6080816902073978342016-08-20T03:37:57.999-07:002016-08-20T03:37:57.999-07:00David, does your H/D formula work with digital pho...David, does your H/D formula work with digital photographs?<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.com