Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 3 votes

The Loch Ness Giant Salamander

loch ness salamander

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#46    Steve Plambeck

Steve Plambeck

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 05 October 2012 - 05:02 PM

View PostJunior Chubb, on 04 October 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

One question though, looking at the date of the encounter, would you say these creatures are no longer with us?

It would be terribly sad not to mention ironic if the first photo taken was of one (or two) of the last living specimens.  There are however still a few sightings per year, as well as tantalizing if not definitive sonar contacts from time to time.  There's a lot more traffic and noise around the Loch than in former times, and perhaps that keeps them from showing themselves as often when near shore.  It's also possible sightings were normally this infrequent, and the 1930's were the exception for a number of possible reasons, including a hypothetical infusion of wels catfish washed into the Loch from private estate ponds during flooding in the mid 19th century; catfish aren't indegenous to Scotland and can't reproduce at the water temperature of Loch Ness, but under such circumstances any that got into the Loch would have reached enormous sizes by the 1930's, and could account for some of the hump sightings in that period (but not for long-neck or any of the land sightings).  Those catfish would be dead and gone now, reducing the number of "false positive" sightings.  I think what may be more telling is that land sightings have become more infrequent (only one in the last two or three decades) which certainly implies a change has occured.  Worlwide, amphibian populations have crashed during the last couple decades, which is very alarming.

View PostJunior Chubb, on 04 October 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Here you go Urisk, its a bit crude but this is what I cannot avoid seeing. Funnily enough though to create this image I Googled for a better quality version to work with and found one, looking at the larger version the 'dogs' head seemed less obvious and something more 'aquatic' was more apparent...

Like I said originally 'The power of suggestion is strong with this one'.

Posted Image

And here is a link to the larger (unaltered?) original image. (http://1.bp.blogspot...Allen+Image.jpg)

That's the real deal alright.  Working backwards, author Roland Watson discovered the Fortean Picture Library held this original version of the photo and obtained it for his research.  It had been donated to the FPL by Steuart Campbell (according to Aleksandar T. Lovchanski).  It was given to Campbell by Maurice Burton, who had obtained it in the 1960's, made from a glass lantern slide that E. Heron-Allen had made from the original negative in the 1930's.  The Heron-Allen image contains all the detail lost in the press reproductions and their overwhelming contrast adjustments throughout the years; what's in most of the books are photographs taken of old newspapers, then turned into half-tones for reproduction by printing press.

And what a difference it makes it terms of clarity and detail.  It was working from this that R. Watson discovered the true head appears at the right-hand end of the "object".  You can also see how the motion-blurred spray tossed up by the rear appendage gives us the "ear" of the "dog".  The humps of the two animals have moved relative to each other since a dowsing, so that the line between shiny wet skin and darker drier skin has become disjointed; the darker spots being out of alignment gives us the "eye" of the "dog" (darker spot on the side of the further animal) and "snout" (darker spot on the side of the nearer animal).

Edited by Steve Plambeck, 05 October 2012 - 05:14 PM.


#47    Steve Plambeck

Steve Plambeck

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 05 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

View PostInsanity, on 04 October 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

This site here has a some info on the loch, and the fauna section shows that the fish population grows during the same months.
Makes sense to me for any predator on the loch to become more active during the same months when the food is plentiful.

**edit** It would be helpful if I pasted the link, wouldn't it?

http://www.ilec.or.jp/database/eur/eur-08.html
Going with the salamander, its possible those few months could provide with enough food for the rest of the year.  Large ectotherms don't require much food, and even more so if its metabolism is lower due to the environment.

That's my gut feeling exactly:  these creatures take advantage of the salmon runs, fattening up for the rest of the year like bears do.  My guess would also be that reproduction then occurs shortly after these months, when energy reserves are highest.  The known giant salamanders swallow their prey whole, so I'm not sure even the largest of the known ones, the Chinese Giant Salamander can tackle full grown salmon.  But there would be the impetus for evolving an even larger form of aquatic salamander, to exploit salmon, which are such a rich food source the extra size needed to prey on them could pay for itself.

Cold-water amphibians do have very low metabolisms, and with char and other species available when the salmon aren't around I do think Loch Ness can support giant salamanders in permanent residence.


#48    Urisk

Urisk

    Smiling like a killer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined:15 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • born to lose
    live to win

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:35 PM

View PostJunior Chubb, on 04 October 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Here you go Urisk, its a bit crude but this is what I cannot avoid seeing. Funnily enough though to create this image I Googled for a better quality version to work with and found one, looking at the larger version the 'dogs' head seemed less obvious and something more 'aquatic' was more apparent...

Like I said originally 'The power of suggestion is strong with this one'.

Posted Image

And here is a link to the larger (unaltered?) original image. (http://1.bp.blogspot...Allen+Image.jpg)

Brilliant! Thanks for clearing that up. :) Great rendering, so thank you for that.

So now what could the fairly solid thing bottong left of the object be?

Posted Image

I have seen beyond the bounds of infinity and drawn down daemons from the stars

#49    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:23 PM

View PostUrisk, on 05 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Brilliant! Thanks for clearing that up. :) Great rendering, so thank you for that.

So now what could the fairly solid thing bottong left of the object be?

I'd say its open to interpretation.

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#50    silverity

silverity

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 29 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2012

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

View PostInsanity, on 05 October 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I'd say its open to interpretation.

That sums up the entire Loch Ness Monster story. To me, there is a fish/eel/amphibian like head to the right. Forget about dogs, this is a more mysterious animal.

I like the Siberian Newt now, I can imagine Nessie snuggling down for a deep freeze snooze buried in that thick silt far from prying eyes and sonar.

Roland Watson


Loch Ness Monster Blog

#51    HerryGrail

HerryGrail

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

Hi everyone,

I'm a casual Loch Ness Monster enthusiast and have been fascinated by the salamander theory, along with the opportunity to view the Hugh Gray photo in a larger and cleaner format.

I admit I've always thought it was a dog, but I never bought the "stick" idea. Those ends looked too soft to be wood, so I figured it was some unknown manufactured, boomerang-type object in his mouth that he was fetching.

Now that I see the photo more clearly, I've had a number of questions, which I've crudely added to this image:

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • Why are there repeating shapes that appear manufactured, like windows or grids?
  • Anyone else see a very clear "nut" and a less-clear spout rather than a leg on the lower right?
  • There a few curves that look pretty clear to me. What are they? The one on the lower left (where the leftmost "leg" is) has other stuff under it (that kind of looks like the white shapes above it) but that could be photo trash. The two on the right (the "dog's" jaw) look the same, like the upper one repeats below
Also, another way I see the "dog" image, taking into account my skepticism about the "stick," is as a seal, which of course has a dog-like face:

Posted Image

Look at that nice large image again and see what you think...my biggest issue is that nut/spout area. It might help if we can figure out what kind of 1930's-era object had a part that looked like that!

Edited by HerryGrail, 29 December 2012 - 10:04 PM.


#52    HerryGrail

HerryGrail

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:32 PM

I've spent some more time with the photo and have some more questions. I definitely see an unmistakable system of unnatural lines throughout the image, making it appear to my admittedly untrained eye that we're looking at some kind of composite or multiple-exposure. I know the stories of Gray's highly-regarded reputation and that the newspaper "authenticated" the original, but what else explains these lines? That, plus the very mechanical-looking "nut and spout" I referenced before, make it look like more than just a single natural image.

In addition, it appears to me based on the reflections in the water that the waterline is actually under the strong color break that is usually taken to be the waterline. In addition, that color break is very strong to be a waterline, and in fact looks more like the top edge of a painted strip across the bottom of the object, like a boat has. I can't make out a complete and obvious secondary object, but much of what I see suggests parts of a boat.

One thing I can't account for is why that color-break edge (or the actual waterline) doesn't shift to account for the strong shadow beneath the spout area, but it could be a subtle indentation or raising of the edge that appears level at this angle.

Also, and this is obviously highly speculative, the trashy area below the left "protuberance" interested me, and I thought I saw a pattern that suggested letters in a way that was far too organized to be random trash. With a little contrast, I see the word "BRICK" or "JACK," and just as it's hard to "unsee" the dog face, it's hard for me not to see those letters now, even in the original, uncontrasted photo.

Here's a visual summary (it and the other images I posted link to larger versions)...I'd love to hear other thoughts:

Posted Image


#53    HerryGrail

HerryGrail

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:10 PM

One more...I got to looking at the head area and had another thought:

Posted Image


#54    Steve Plambeck

Steve Plambeck

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:40 AM

View PostHerryGrail, on 30 December 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

I've spent some more time with the photo and have some more questions. I definitely see an unmistakable system of unnatural lines throughout the image, making it appear to my admittedly untrained eye that we're looking at some kind of composite or multiple-exposure. I know the stories of Gray's highly-regarded reputation and that the newspaper "authenticated" the original, but what else explains these lines? That, plus the very mechanical-looking "nut and spout" I referenced before, make it look like more than just a single natural image.

Well the horizontal lines correspond with the dorsal edges of the spines and tails.  There's more than one pair because (as I see it) it's more than one animal.  I see what you mean about the vertical lines, very faint, which I just took to be wetter streaks from previous splashes.  Another intersting thought though is that they could be tell-tale sings of costal grooves which are a normal occurance on salamanders, more pronounced in some species than others.

I really don't see the text or numbers though, and still think we are dealing with natural objects.  It's been brought up by others that it looks like a double exposure, however if this were true the waves would be out of phase with each other between the two shots, resulting in a huge blur where we actually see quite clear and sharp waves in the photo.

There's a new article on the salamander theory over at my blog now, for anyone interested:  http://thelochnessgiantsalamander.blogspot.com/

Steve


#55    Zalanox

Zalanox

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:09 AM

Shouldn't people be using the original photo?

I mean, if you use a version of the photo that's been altered then are you really studying it? To me, this "newer version" looks way too different from the stock to be taken seriously.


#56    HerryGrail

HerryGrail

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:46 PM

I thought the one I was using (showing the line patterns and "spout") was the original...it isn't?


#57    HerryGrail

HerryGrail

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

View PostSteve Plambeck, on 25 January 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

Well the horizontal lines correspond with the dorsal edges of the spines and tails.  There's more than one pair because (as I see it) it's more than one animal.  I see what you mean about the vertical lines, very faint, which I just took to be wetter streaks from previous splashes.  Another intersting thought though is that they could be tell-tale sings of costal grooves which are a normal occurance on salamanders, more pronounced in some species than others.

I really don't see the text or numbers though, and still think we are dealing with natural objects.  It's been brought up by others that it looks like a double exposure, however if this were true the waves would be out of phase with each other between the two shots, resulting in a huge blur where we actually see quite clear and sharp waves in the photo.

There's a new article on the salamander theory over at my blog now, for anyone interested:  http://thelochnessgiantsalamander.blogspot.com/

Steve

Thanks for looking, Steve! I appreciate your attenton and look forward to reading your new post. The thing that bothers me the most is that nut/spout area. How do you interpret its inorganic appearance, especially in the "nut" area?


#58    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:01 PM

Maybe Steve can correct me if I am incorrect, but my understanding is that the original negative plate was lost many years ago.  At the time, the reproductions were converted to half tones, and then had their contrasts darkened in order to be printed in newspapers.  Most copies of the photograph that we've seen over the years have been copies of these half-toned, darkened reproductions.  The copy of a copy concept goes here, and as such, the quality is not equal to the original plate.

The photo Steve is using for his analysis is of glass lantern slides made from the original negatives in 1933.  This copy was in the Fortean Picture Library since the 1960s and for whatever reason overlooked, while the half-toned versions were the ones seen by most of us.

The photo Steve used is then the closest to the original that anyone can get, and is closer then what most of us as probably seen.

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#59    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:57 PM

View PostSteve Plambeck, on 04 October 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:


If that's a stick in a dog's mouth, it's one odd looking stick.  Maybe someone (but not me) will propose it's a writhing salamander in a dog's mouth :yes:


Nah. Bigfoot femur.


#60    TroodonMan56

TroodonMan56

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • Skepticism and open-mindedness go hand in hand; Pseudoscience and arrogant, closed-mindedness also go hand-in-hand.

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:59 AM

View Posthatecraft, on 08 September 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

There is already an explanation for this creature:  It doesn't exist.


Did you study all of the available evidence in a scientific manner before coming to that conclusion? Or did you just assume that it doesn't exist?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users