Tuesday, 2 July 2013

The Latest "Nessie" Pictures

These pictures turned up recently on the Nessie Facebook page and are certainly worthy of further consideration. The witness was Daniel Parker and another on the 26th June about 3pm near the village of Inverfarigaig on the south shore.

He was driving along this quieter road when his attention was taken by an object which appeared to be moving against the prevailing water currents.  He estimated it was about 5 to 6 feet in length and about 1 foot out of the water. He quickly took four pictures with his Blackberry phone before it submerged. Two of these pictures are shown here.






Clearly, the two pictures have been taken from different positions as I see no obvious correlation between the foreground branches in the pictures. However, an examination of the object in the pictures shows it has slightly altered its appearance, though again it is not clear whether this is due to the object itself or the water around it.

Could it be a rock? The location is beside a small section of wall opposite Achnahannet. A look at Google StreetView gives a general view of the location. A zoom in to this area in the second photo shows a rock poking out of the foliage to the right but that rock is far closer to the shore than the object in Daniel's picture.




Rocks do appear and disappear with the loch's rising water levels but not this far out. In fact, rocks that far out would be a hazard to shipping! Two pictures I took with my game camera near this spot show how the rising water level can make rocks come and go, but again I emphasise this is more likely right up at the shoreline.





Daniel says he thought he saw something similar the previous day, but that could indeed have been some of the rocks nearer the shore and it was not at the same location. To quote Daniel:

The first picture was from a clearing about fifty yards from the beginning of the scrub, once this thing was out of view, I reversed the car about ten/twenty feet to another clearing, that's your other picture. This thing started to submerge to the right of this picture and as you can see there is more scrub, by this time I reversed the car back to by where the wall is, we sat there a few minutes, seen nothing and drove off.

One other consideration is a log of some shape which is moving against the prevailing wind due to an underwater seiche. This is possible, but the main point here is that the object submerged and did not reappear after the witnesses had waited for a few minutes. Logs do not tend to do this.

So, it could be a living creature and Dan is adamant it was not a seal. If it was indeed showing up to six feet of body out of the water, that limits our options in terms of animals. Perhaps some more information will be forthcoming if the other two pictures become available.

As an aside, I note the good old Loch Ness Hoodoo struck when one of the witnesses told me he had left a "good camera and video cam with great zoom" at their cabin. I doubt that would matter. As soon as Nessie notes they have better equipment, she'll stay underwater! 

But it shows the need for the best equipment one has when at Loch Ness as I don't think most camera-phones are up to the job. The natural assumption is that one is not likely to see anything unusual when visiting and that is true for any given person.

Opinions are invited from readers.

POSTSCRIPT

As it turned out, it was a rock and thanks to Steve Feltham's investigative skills, it was located at Loch Tarff which is a small loch on the south side of Loch Ness. My intiial thoughts based on a location given as near Inverfarigaig are obviously not now applicable. Just as well I didn't commit to a "This is Nessie" statement.

More details are at the Loch Ness Monster facebook where the alleged photographer and others debate the whole episode.


49 comments:

  1. As was noted on the Facebook "Nessie" page, a visit to this gentleman's Facebook page shows a number of posts about his 'upcoming visit' to the Loch, but not a single mention of the outcome: what would for most of us be a SuperBowl class achievement - filming something that could plausibly be the LNM. I'm not saying he didn't have the experience he said, and that the photos aren't of that experience, but I find it passing strange that he doesn't say a thing about it on his Facebook page. Nor do I see any evidence that the object is moving .. a wake, foam, disturbed water around the object.... hope it's the real deal, but skeptical of this one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, both witnesses have chosen not to post anything about this incident on their individual facebook pages for fear of ridicule from their friends; second, I am reminded of the various witness reports taken over the years that describe a stationary hump like object that appeared to be basking on the surface before submerging without a trace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ain't nothing there lolol

    ReplyDelete
  4. a lot of debate could be taken care of by letting us see the 3rd and 4th pictures. then we would have a much clearer idea.... or at least more to debate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. GB wrote "an object which appeared to be moving against the prevailing water currents."

    I think "prevailing waves" would be more accurate. Water currents are generally invisible, betrayed only when some mainly submerged floating object is transported by them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Could be anything. I dunno. Years upon years of questionable bad quality black blob photos. Its 2013 and yet everyone at loch ness are only carrying one shot pinhole cameras. I'd camp right at the waters edge for a good enough length of time till whatever it is came out and had me for dinner. At least then I'd know the truth right before I'm chomped to bits, lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. seems nessie hunters dont want to believe holidaymakers when they see something unusual in the loch. yet when locals at the cafe in foyers claimed to see something from hundreds of feet away from the water ( i have been there and no way can you spot anything more than what would be a blob ) the nessie hunters say its a worthy sighting!!!!! ridiculous !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not to take away from anyone's cryptid experience, but cant we find a generous funding source to monitir the lake with satellite and or specifically positioned cameras for a period of a year or so that are consistently being monitored and checked by a group of serious Nessie hunters? I just feel like our technology is under utilized in our search for new species...? The AIMS unvestigators as unusual a group as they are seem to have had excellent results by their shows this far...why arent they putting the extra day or two or week to get the actual capture or photo capture...ie the Grassman...That pic looked like a bear, but it was interesting enough to really grasp my attention with all the other side evidence that was shown and the tracks that were discovered (why not cast the prints for science later)/ Anyway just some thoughts on the general cryptid investigation....I wish I was wealthy beyond worrying where my next meal comes from, because I would gladly appropriate my time and money to these various tasks and investigations...
    mgoldyman@bigbellyfoods.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good question, Michael.

      If I had a million quid .. what I would do at Loch Ness!

      The Nessie search has always been underfunded and reliant on donors. That doesn't mean nothing worthy has not been done but too many have presumed lack of results is not due to funding issues but ... because nothing is there.

      Oh well.

      Delete
    2. Better yet... set up a webcam already!

      Delete
  9. Michael - I have a web cam facility at Temple Pier which has been uploading images every 8 seconds since 2007.
    http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/cameras.html

    If you have suggestions for improvement,please let me know and I will try to incorporate them.

    Thanks, Dick Raynor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Odd.

    The first one looks to me somewhat like the outline of a young crocodile or alligator lying low in the water.

    The second one not unlike a beaver.

    ReplyDelete
  11. These are quite intriguing photos but not the "smoking gun" that we are looking for. It's a bit of a shame that the Nessie hoodoo struck again. We were there the very same week with high definition gear etc. and guess what, no sightings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My theory is that because these creatures are seen in many places and different lochs, is that they are migratory and that is why many searches have concluded that there is nothing in Loch Ness, because they have missed the window of opportunity. Perhaps someone with the time should be logging the dates of these other sightings and try and build a picture of the migratory patterns and the best times to search.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's definitely something to be said for that.

      Delete
  13. Roy Mackal did this in The Monsters Of Loch Ness (1976). His data shows a broad peak of sightings in June to September, with June and August being the months with most sightings. Of course some of this probably relates to the number of observers. It would be interesting to re-analyse the data distinguishing between holiday visitors and residents.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Looks like our esteemed Mr. Feltham has thankfully put screws to this non-event. For the life of me, I can't believe that such a transparent hoax warranted a blog entry and gave these two gonads their fifteen minutes of "fame."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erik, I don't think it was that transparent until as the blog itself said more information was forthcoming. That information has now arrived.

      Delete
    2. Come on, Roland! It was as transparent as a sheet of glass. These guys were having a laugh at your expense.

      Delete
    3. Erik! I'll admit I'll cut some slack when listening to reports, I am biased towards Nessie after. This is required to counterbalance those who class all witnesses as liars or incompetents.


      Delete
    4. I think it's a bit unfair to insinuate that a sceptic views all eyewitnesses as "liars or incompetents." I have never said as much.

      I called Dan and Geraint liars and incompetents. And I was right.

      Delete
    5. Okay, Erik. Name the witnesses which are not.

      Delete
    6. That is a mighty long list you're asking for, Roland, and one that no one is qualified to give. I am sure that we can agree there have been many fakes and many lies, but that does not mean that every misidentification was a falsehood, nor does it mean that the eyewitness was stupid. I have never suggested anything of the kind. To infer as much seems an emotional response rather than a logical one.

      Delete
    7. By "incompetent" I mean failing to recognize ordinary phenomema on the loch. Is there any witness you regard as not a liar and who did not fail to recognise ordinary loch phenomena?

      Delete
    8. Roland, I think the point that Shine, Raynor, and so many others have so convincingly made is that "ordinary loch phenomena" is a thousand times more interesting than the fantastical notion of a landlocked water dragon. Loch Ness is such a wonderfully deceptive place, playing tricks on the most rational mind.

      I watched the waters intently for a week after three decades of intense (book) study, patting myself on the back every time I "saw through" one of the loch's magic tricks -- standing waves, heat distortion, birds, etc -- and yet, even then, I was completely taken in by a "Nessie" I saw ploughing north toward Inverness just outside the Clansman. All my scepticism fell from my dropped jaw as I began filming, calling to my wife that there was SOMETHING HUGE IN THE WATER. Was it Nessie? No. And I walked away, sheepish and humbled, realizing that even a book-learned, hardened sceptic such as myself was completely deceived during that minute that I "saw" the Loch Ness Monster.

      So do I consider eyewitnesses liars and incompetents? No. Do I consider "loch phenomena" to be "ordinary," in the sense that most bodies of water -- the kind NOT filling a massive, steep-walled trench carved out by glaciers -- are? No.

      Delete
    9. Erik, name some witnesses you consider as not liars or incompetent observers. I myself find the concept of a "landlocked water dragon" a 1000 times more interesting than standing waves, birds or logs. I can see those anywhere.

      As for your experience, well ...., show us the video!

      Delete
    10. The video remains on a hard drive only because I know someone, somewhere, would become convinced it was Nessie -- and my name isn't "Geraint," "Frank," or "Doc."

      Honest mistakes? Dinsdale. No one would dedicate their life to a pursuit the way that he did if they weren't convinced. His sighting was from an extreme distance, and thus the mistake is forgiveable and understandable; and he was neither a liar nor incompetent insofar as I can determine from his reputation, or his writing. However, it's pretty clear that what he saw was a boat.

      My father-in-law, until the day that he died after a ten-year battle against ALS, was one of the most intelligent, logical, rational people I have ever known on (almost) every subject...but he still believed, as an Evangelical Christian, that the world was made in seven days, that homosexuals were going to burn in a lake of fire, and that being reduced to a breathing back of immobile meat was The Lord's will for purposes yet unrevealed. The grandchildren he never met are still waiting for that reason to be shown.

      People need purpose, Roland. They seek the GREATER MYSTERY. That doesn't make them dishonest or stupid, but sometimes, willfully blind to the facts.

      Delete
    11. Erik, sounds like Dinsdale comes under "incompetent" then.


      I don't connect with what you are saying about purpose. Are you saying witnesses to a typical sighting needed purpose in their lives? The Loch Ness Monster figures pretty low in those stakes.

      The vast majority do not go to Loch Ness seeking purpose like it was some kind of pilgrimage. It's just an animal which can't pay the bills or cure diseases.

      Delete
    12. You're being willfully difficult. Dinsdale wasn't "incompetent" -- he made a human error that can be identified thanks to modern computer technology.

      To many, Loch Ness IS a pilgrimage. It certainly was for Dinsdale. According to Rip Hepple's Ness Letters, you yourself were making trips there based on your belief that Nessie was a psychic phenomenon. You're saying that it's a casual interest that causes you to pore over old photographs for new clues and write lengthy articles on a self-published blog, all trying to prove the existence of the invisible?

      Ask yourself why you take it do personally when someone questions your "truths," Roland, and then tell me this isn't a religion for you: faith in the existence of that which defies existence.

      Delete
    13. This one has ruffled a few feathers and is what blogs are all about. Keep up the good work GB. P.S. I may be wrong but the photos look very much like they were taken at Loch Morar but I haven't visited every Loch in Scotland so I am nowhere near sure about that.

      Delete
    14. He is clearly judged as incompetent by the standards of sceptics. He failed to recognise a boat thru binoculars.

      It interests me like anything else would interest a serious hobbyist - coins, stamps, football, film making, etc. No one would suggest these hobbyists are somehow on a pilgrimage or require some kind of spiritualisation. The Loch Ness Monster interests me a lot (no casually) but I know where it stands in the hierarchy of life. I am not up there for months at a time like previous adherents.

      You may note I still make trips even though I no longer hold to a psychic Nessie.

      And to tell you the truth I get some satisfaction from dismantling tired old sceptical arguments. I love a good debate on top of all this.

      Do I take this personally? Not as much as the sceptics when I dismantle their weak theories. Read some of the ad hominens that fly around.

      And the references to the "invisible" or that which "defies existence" are your opinions, Erik ... or dogmatic statements that are more in keeping with religion?

      Delete
    15. Toe-may-toe, Ta-mah-toe.

      If you were seeking to prove the existence of a new form of caterpillar, I'd agree with you that this was simply an investigation into the possibility of a new (or surviving) species; but the search for The Loch Ness Monster is the quest for The Holy Grail. Dinsdale himself made allusions to St. George, after all. On the surface it may be about facts and figures, but we're talking about an attempt to render archetypes flesh and blood.

      Perhaps you no longer believe in psychic Nessie's. Fair enough. But don't try to tell me that your belief in manifestations from The Goblin Universe wasn't connected to THE GREAT TRUTHS that such a theory made possible. If we have psychic Nessie's, what ELSE is out there...? What does it mean about our perception of reality...? Etc.

      I've yet to see a Nessie Atheist become offended by your dismantling of their theories; but I'm hardly omniscient, and would appreciate if you might cite an example.

      Regarding Nessie's "invisibility," per se: we have a hypothetical animal that, despite being photographed numerous times, never resembles the same hypothetical animal; is rarely seen; leaves no carcass, bones, or physical evidence; survives on an inadequate food supply; evades sonar; and is categorically dismissed as even a remote possibility except by enthusiastic amateurs with little to no zoological experience, regurgitating instead the hypothesis they've memorized from authors on the subject. Show me Nessie, and I'll show you Santa Claus. Until then, we're dealing with an idea, and ideas aren't flesh and blood -- or even visible! -- until they're made manifest. Eighty years has yielded nothing to prove the possibility of a Loch Ness Monster; quite the opposite, really.

      Delete
    16. Hmm... Have you ever actually looked at the Gray photo? And I'm talking about the real image, the one closest to the original negatives, the one published on this blog. The one that looks nothing at all like a dog, and even less like anything else (other than a Giant Salamander, of course.) How can you really characterize the Loch Ness Giant Salamander as an invisible article of faith when you have before you on this blog the existence of an image whose most parsimonious skeptical conclusion is of a wave-ringed object that is definitely not a boat, with a longish "tail" end and a conical "head" end floating relatively high in the water? All it takes to debunk that whole "It's a dog!" line is a visit to any forum where ghost debunkers gather. They will tell you all about the kinds of tricks that eyes can play to make phantom faces appear before unwitting photographers.

      I mean, not to be *too* brash, but your whole exposition here sounds to me like merely a well spoken version of a guy poking with scissors at a platypus pelt and saying, "Fake!" over and over again to himself. That word only sounds educated if you can find the stitches in the first pelt, preferably sometime before the second one shows up. Therefore, if you want to actually convince anyone of the skeptical position, you should focus on establishing the reality of those stitches that you must somehow believe exist in the Gray photo. Things on the nature of belief belong in the psychology section.

      Delete
  15. Cant believe u all got duped by these photos. Including u erik ! Haha fair play i would like to buy them a beer. And you say ' gonads' eric. Did you call tim dinsdale that after his famous hoax? Or the AAS after their touched up photos. Seems they all at it. And now even George edwards. Come on lads time to stop your silly obsession with this nonsense. 3 CHEERS to daniels photos. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matty:

      If you read the LNM Facebook page, I was arguing with Geraint and accused him of hoaxing. He played victim when I asked how it was possible that they took seven photos but never bothered to switch their phone to video mode, and deleted all but two shots. So no, I was never "duped" by this obvious fraud. Cheers.

      Delete
    2. not duped either Geraint. next time you try making a hoax maybe you should snap off the branches when your done, oh and make sure your in the right loch.

      Delete
  16. Hear hear matt. No diffrent to the chanel 5 lucy hoax but they all lived it. These lads have done nothing diffrent to that. just face it boyd you had the wool pulled over your eyes and just dont like it. You all believe or you wouldnt be herr writing about it. Your all sour because you have never seen it ha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The absence of proper punctuation and the wealth of grievous spelling mistakes betray you, Geraint.

      Delete
  17. Yes it was transparent Roland, once I had looked at the alleged location and not found a match, (which i posted) then as you should well know there is no other place around the loch where you can get a view that includes the foreshore like that from a car window.
    .from that day on I stopped looking for the rock in loch ness. I would have posted this observation but by then the conversation was so anti "cynical experts" (of which i am neither) that I stopped listening to the debate all together. You should also be a bit wary of making judgements of photographs, because you judged that if it was a rock then it would be a hazard to shipping, and it turned out to be a foot long and about 15feet feet from shore, and sat in a foot of water..
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your investigation on the matter but I must admit I did not really contribute more to the debate once I headed off on holiday (back at the weekend).

      Delete
    2. Who would these "cynical experts" be...?

      Delete
    3. I take it you're referring to Geraint Gibson and Daniel Parker as the 'anti-cynical experts' as they were the only ones complaining about how their photos were being judged and how that kind of judgement is the reason why people haven't come forward with sightings etc., in recent times.

      Delete
  18. Skeptics appear to be mentally ill and paid...

    ReplyDelete
  19. hello frend i'm from indonesia. i'm indonesian.

    The Latest "Nessie" Pictures < what the mean Nessie ? please tell me :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nessie" is derived from "Loch Ness" and is a feminization of the word "Ness".

      Delete
    2. I do not understand :D, but I really enjoyed the photo of the lake or reservoir.. :)

      Delete
  20. Actually it was me and Dan Parker not Geraint. We went out round the loch and decided to fake a photo to fool him but he sent it to a debate site so really it went too far. It was too late once it had gone so me and Dan decided to keep it quiet then our little hoax got rumbled. Poor Geraint got the blame though he took it all with a pinch of salt fair doos. He us still a big believer and is at the ness as i speak so i hope he really does see something. So it wasnt really a hoax it was a trick that backfired, no harm done. Happy hunting lads !!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why didn't he take a movie clip with his Blackberry instead of pictures. Doesn't Blackberry make movie clips.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I like the loch ness monster stoys but are they true like hello!!

    ReplyDelete