Monday, 26 August 2013

The Latest Video of Nessie?

After the anti-climax of the hump which turned out to be a rock which was not even at Loch Ness, we have a video of something on Loch Ness which requires more thought. The Daily Mail has printed one picture and a video of something low in the water which at first sight looks intriguing.



Three stills below from the video show the object's progression from left to right as it slowly dies away. The witness' own testimony is below but is it just a wave of water? I ran the video clip quite a few times to get a sense of what was going on and examine its progress and context.







The first thing to note is the orientation of the object, it runs from right to left but general boat traffic would move between top and bottom. The picture below shows no boat up loch which could have been a source but we cannot tell what may have passed in other directions. 

To give the context, there is an inlet to the left of the photograph called Inchnacardoch Bay at which various boats are moored. To the right is the former Fort Augustus Abbey which I believe has a small harbour. The aerial picture below shows this and our witness would likely have been at the head of the tongue of land between the River Ness and the Caledonian Canal (marked "A"). However, for a boat to cross from right to left is a bit risky as the Summer volume of traffic heading north-south is high. I am not sure if such a manoeuvre is forbidden by the local authorities. 



The other issue is that I cannot see the other arm of a proposed bow wave. There are ripples visible at the foreground of the video but they look unconnected to this phenomenon. So I do not get the overwhelming impression that this is connected to a boat now out of view (and the witness said no boats were near).

A freak wave as someone suggested or something just below the surface disturbing the water?

An amateur photographer has captured an eerie photo from the shore of Loch Ness which could encourage those who believe in tales of a monster living beneath the surface of the lake.

The image was taken by David Elder at Fort Augustus, at the south-west end of the 23-mile-long body of water in northern Scotland.

It shows a long bow wave apparently caused by some sort of disturbance on the surface of the loch.
The 50-year-old photography enthusiast insists the only thing that could have caused it is 'a solid black object under the water'.

Mr Elder, from East Kilbride in Lanarkshire, was able to take still photos as well as filming a video of the mysterious scene.

'We were at the pier head at Fort Augustus and I was taking a picture of a swan at the time,' he said.

'Out of the corner of my right eye I caught site of a black area of water about 15ft long which developed into a kind of bow wave.
'I'm convinced this was caused by a solid black object under the water. The water was very still at the time and there were no ripples coming off the wave and no other activity on the water.

'Water was definitely going over something solid and making the wave. It looks like the sort of wave perhaps created by a windsurfing board but there was nobody on the loch at the time, no boats, nothing.

'The disturbance in the water began moving up the Loch sideways. It is something I just can't explain.'

The extraordinary picture will doubtless fuel the imaginations of anyone who believes the story that there is a sea creature living in the lake, which is Britain's largest due to its 230m depth.

However, sceptics will ascribe the wave to a freak gust of wind or other natural phenomenon.
The story of the Loch Ness Monster goes back as far as the medieval period, but it first came to widespread public attention in 1933.

That year a couple named the Spicers claimed to have seen a creature with a large body and long neck jumped in to the loch, causing a national sensation.

The next year, the iconic 'surgeon's photograph' was published, purporting to show the creature swimming in Loch Ness with its head out of the water.
Although that image has been debunked as a hoax, the search for Nessie has continued, with true believers undeterred by the failure of repeated attempts by scientists to find the creature.


47 comments:

  1. Sometimes a cigar is just a wave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the more pertinent question is what is causing the wave.

      Delete
    2. Wind...?

      I don't know. I mean, it's a nice photo; but the video is rather unconvincing, to put it mildly.

      Delete
  2. There is no need for anything to "be causing" the waves, just something to "have caused" them. Once generated they can go for tens of minutes. These seem to be moving from right to left, consistent with a boat headed for Fort Augustus. The white-knuckle boats often pull hard turns to "thrill" their passengers. It is quite a long way out from Inveroich Point - the white house is Port Clair 3.4 miles away. And it is just boat waves, overlaid with the wind-generated ripples in the still photo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The picture still gives the impression of a small head on the left of the dark wave. However, the "head " does not show up on the actual video. Intriguing, but the mystery continues...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like these Nessie-like wave and Wave-like Nessie accounts. We get to hear of the magical boats which disappear from view while those waves, like Ol' Man River, just keeps rolling along!

    On a par with the St Columba Ghost Ship if you ask me.

    Just remember the duration of the wave is proportional to the mass and velocity of the boat. The bigger the wave, the bigger the boat and therefore the more unmissable it would be to the witness.

    And has anyone spotted the other arm of the proposed bow wave?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Just remember the duration of the wave is proportional to the mass and velocity of the boat. The bigger the wave, the bigger the boat and therefore the more unmissable it would be to the witness."

    I would urge readers to forget the above immediately.

    1. the "duration" of a wave is not proportional to the mass and velocity of the boat,
    2. "bigger" boats do not necessarily produce "bigger" waves and
    3. the "missability" of a boat depends on the observer, which way he was looking, and for how long he had been observing.
    As I wrote earlier, the white-knuckle boats often pull hard turns to "thrill" their passengers and could be either unrecordable specks in the distance, or tied up at the jetty by the time the observer noticed the disturbance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said mass and velocity are proportional not equal. There is a difference. Proportional means other factors can enter the equation (e.g. boat shape). So no need to forget anything.

      The duration of a wave is dependent on the energy supplied to it. The boat(s) delivers that via the momemtum it has (p=mv).

      Missability also depends on the position of the boat.

      As for the "white knuckle" boats. I'll consult the man who ought to know - Marcus Atkinson. I'll email him and see what he thinks of what you said.

      Delete
    2. Yes, and even with your changes, the assertion about your property of "duration" is still plain wrong and appears in no formula that I have ever seen! The "duration" is independent of the cause of the wave. If I were you I would just delete the 13.43 post and stop digging :-) Do ask Marcus about the stunt turns they do - I will try to film them for you, and while writing, please ask him what make and model of sonar he used to pick up his green monster, and also what frequency he used. Thanks, Dick.

      Delete
    3. "Just remember the duration of the wave is proportional to the mass and velocity of the boat. The bigger the wave, the bigger the boat and therefore the more unmissable it would be to the witness."

      I would urge readers to forget the above immediately.

      I don't think it's too unwise to suggest that the wave could have been caused by something other than a boat. What other known and explainable factors could have caused this.

      Delete
    4. Okay Dick, we shall take it that the duration of a wave has nothing to do with the weight or speed of the boat that produced it. Cough!

      Delete
    5. Pete, thank you. Note I never said "this is the Loch Ness Monster". But note I never said it was a boat wake either. Not all water disturbances are caused by boats at Loch Ness.

      Delete
    6. That's Ok GB. It was pretty clear that you weren't jumping to any conclusions. This type of thing is what blogging is all about:-)

      Delete
    7. Pete commented" I don't think it's too unwise to suggest that the wave could have been caused by something other than a boat. What other known and explainable factors could have caused this."

      None are required, just boats. If it is indistinguishable from a boat wake and moves like a boat wake in an area where boats operate from and navigate to, it is perverse to argue that it is anything other than a boat wake :-)

      Delete
    8. None are required, just boats. If it is indistinguishable from a boat wake and moves like a boat wake in an area where boats operate from and navigate to, it is perverse to argue that it is anything other than a boat wake :-)

      I was thinking that perhaps the wave was caused by the current from the inlet of the River Oich interacting with an influx of water from the actuation of the lock sluice gates on the Caledonian Canal. The channels are close enough to interfere with each other. If it's neither this or a boat wake then it could actually be a Nessie :-)

      Delete
  6. look in the far distance theres a boat......

    ReplyDelete
  7. "After the anticlimax of the hump which turned out to be a rock which was not even at Loch Ness..."

    Anticlimactic to WHOM? Are we so desperate for Nessie photos that we can't see through the most obvious lie???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erik, It was not "the most obvious lie" on the first viewing. You are retroactively applying what was later learnt.


      Delete
    2. I was calling it a transparent hoax from Day One.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but with you, Erik, it's either a hoax or misidentification. So it was even odds whether you would get it right. :)

      Delete
    4. I would debate this had I not been indisputably correct. :)

      Delete
    5. Can someone link me to the story of the 'rock which wasn't even at Loch Ness'. Either I'm having a senior moment or this story bypassed me entirely (the odds are even as to which it is!). Thanks.

      Delete
    6. That was covered more on the Loch Ness Monster debate page on Facebook.

      Delete
    7. Wasn't it worth an update to your original story???

      Delete
  8. Motivated Adventurer28 August 2013 22:51

    I get the whole hidden boat wake theory. Sometimes a wake is hidden under water and travels a bit, especially when in deep water. From what I've experienced of those they don't last as long as the video showed, aren't as long in length, and don't travel like the "disturbance" did. But as I've stated in other articles, I don't take as much time as I want to watch ripple in water these days.
    I was reading the account and one thing that stuck out to me was the witness saying the disturbance began moving sideways. I take that to me after it traveled forward to one end it then moved at an immediate 90 degree angle to what it hand been moving while still facing the same direction. I was wondering what could move sideways after moving straight ahead and I think I got answer. I assume this wake is was caused by a large cylindrical object a foot or so below the water. After swimming forwards for a bit it then stopped. Then it rolled sideways, producing a sideways wake. This seems to coincide with accounts of a hump surfacing and then rolling. Now I don't see much sideways action going on in the video but that may have taken place after the video I saw ended. Simplest answer is there was a large object moving under the water that can move sideways. So Occam's Razor would say this may be Nessie.
    I am still wondering why we don't have more video from this event.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe nessies are a colony of turtles or terrapins without the shells. They can survive the cold and can hold their breath for long hours underwater. They are bigger than modern day ones and have probably been around for years on end. They have survived in the high oxygen waters of the ness. Like modern day terrapins they swim to the top head and neck first so just touch the surface when breathing so leaving it hard for anyone to see as the water and waves are constantly choppy. Perhaps also they could be more active at night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny you should say that and then I watch "Loch Ness Revealed" on Animal Planet's Monster Week who opt for the plesio-turtle. has its pluses, has it minuses.

      What are those Hillstrands like?!

      Delete
    2. If you look into Mansi's Photo of Champ in 1977.Doesn't it look like a turtle?
      http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/7016dd30-0fda-4ee2-be98-44346af3a535.gif

      Delete
    3. "Funny you should say that and then I watch "Loch Ness Revealed" on Animal Planet's Monster Week who opt for the plesio-turtle. has its pluses, has it minuses.

      What are those Hillstrands like?!"

      Roland, you really should take more water with it! "The Loch Ness Monster Revealed" starred Philippe Cousteau :-)

      Delete
    4. To be clearer, the Hillstrands were on after the Loch Ness piece, a rerun of that Alaskan Caddy video and them bombing Lake Iliamna.

      I wonder if it's allowed to depth charge Loch Ness?

      Delete
    5. EXplosions strictly forbidden, I'm afraid. You could repeat our (LNI) use of IMplosions from 44 years ago, after trying our use of night drifts in open boats with biopsy darts from the previous year.
      http://lochnessinvestigation.com/nightdrifters72.jpg That's me on the right, in 1968 :-)

      Delete
  10. JOHN KIRK WOULD SAY IT'S ONLY A WAVE.In Lake Okanagan it would only be Ogopogo.Now,we should come to an agreement about who is the worldwide word in Cryptozoology.He took the leadership,and he's not scientifically qualified for that.Now if Dick Raynor says it's a wave,i will believe in his words by all means.This is Loch Ness,and not just a Northamerican lake.The world is not only North America,or Cameron Lake.This looks like a wave,or a big eel or fish,and that doesn't mean that Nessie doesn't exist.Come on John Kirk,this is Great Britain,and it's part of the world too.When you go to TV shows remember the rest of the world...Russia (Labynkyr,Vorota,Kyir),Sweden (Storsjorn),Norway (Seljorn).Learn from Roy MacKal,Paul Le Blonde,Raynor,Shine,etc...and study to be a scientist,otherwise,Cryptozoology will never be a subject in the Academic field.

    ReplyDelete
  11. GB. what are the minus's. ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think they should be more visible, unless they have modified their behaviour.

      Delete
  12. Motivated Adventurer28 August 2013 22:51 wrote:
    "I get the whole hidden boat wake theory. Sometimes a wake is hidden under water and travels a bit, especially when in deep water." Not according to known physics, they don't; please google Kelvin Wave and read that it is a surface gravity wave.

    "I was reading the account and one thing that stuck out to me was the witness saying the disturbance began moving sideways." - It couldn't move any other way; it could not levitate out of the water, nor would it appear - from the viewpoint of the observer just a few feet above water level at the mouth of the River Oich, to move towards or away from him. Sideways was the only observable direction.

    It was first observed to the observer's right and moved consistently towards his left, as could any wave propagating in deep water. There is nothing in the images I have seen to suggest any changes during the period of the photography. From what I have read so far, whatever generated the waves did so before the photography began, and could have been a boat unseen by the photographer. This is no way detracts from the sincerity of the observer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As usual the video does not show much of anything, but I don't know that any of the above points about waves and wakes addresses the fact that these disturbances do move from right to left, not as a wave or wake, but as disturbances at the surface at almost regular intervals.

      Delete
    2. "... the fact that these disturbances do move from right to left, not as a wave or wake, but as disturbances at the surface at almost regular intervals."

      Surely "disturbances at the surface at almost regular intervals" is a pretty good definition of a wave or wake?

      Delete
    3. I mean separate, individual, one after the other disturbances, not a single wave or a series of waves. I agree the video does not show much, but you can clearly see undisturbed water between each occurrence of disturbances. I am just as interested in seeing what people mistake for a lake monster, but if that is a wave effect I'd like to see someone film another one just like it.

      Delete
    4. hopkarma, I am confused by your comments. If you are referring to Roland's still frames above, we are just seeing a normal wave train. Parts appear dark because the surface there is at an angle to the viewer such that rays refract down into the water, while elsewhere the angle of incidence only permits reflection of the pale scene beyond.
      The ripples in the bottom left are quite separate and are caused where the River Oich flows into the loch.

      Delete
    5. I am referring to the video Dick. In the video there is a disturbance in one spot, which goes away as the disturbance moves to the left. There is clear, undisturbed water behind and in front of each spot where a disturbance occurs. Each of the still frames posted above is of a different disturbance that happened one after the other, in one place at a time. I will say though these stills look nothing like the first photo, which is much more wave like, though still somewhat odd looking.

      Delete
    6. Motivated Adventurer5 September 2013 21:44

      Dick Raynor, I was referring to the written account not what was in the video. The way I understood what was said was that relative to the original direction of the object, it started to immediately move sideways, without turning, not continuing the direction it had been going.

      Delete
    7. Thanks to all for your comments. I am now in direct communication with Mr Elder and due to my usual agreement of confidentiality future comments on my study of his material will come from Mr Elder himself.
      Cheers, Dick.

      Delete
  13. Whats the minus's ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well. Im sure they would change to adapt in a cold dark deep loch. Terrapins have adapted in lakes and ponds all over the uk after been dumped after the ninja craze in the late 80's. who would have thought that terrapins could survive our freezing cold winters in shallow council ponds? But they have.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have just returned home from a day out at the zoo. interestingly i was watching some yellow headed turtles in a tank of water about 3ft high. when the turtles came up for breath they came head first and just touched the surface. when i watched fron the surface i could hardly see them. there was no shadow as their neck was potruding and the head hardly touched the surface. im sure this spectacle on loch ness would not be seen even by a larger creature. the waves and the darkness and the size of the loch would make it hard. hmmmmmmm. just a thought!

    ReplyDelete