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.


* - - - - 1 votes

Famous Nessie Photo Boosted


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#16    silverity

silverity

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:44 AM

View Postbulveye, on 21 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

good video, that it pretty much sums it all up.

I realise that standing waves and boat wakes do account for some Nessie sightings but I do not think this applies here as

1. There are only two "waves" visible.
2. Where is the rest of the waves that would follow the boat?
3. The largest wave/hump is nearly three feet high!
4. Again, the "waves" are generating their own wake which is not likely.

Roland

Roland Watson


Loch Ness Monster Blog

#17    silverity

silverity

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:45 AM

View PostRafterman, on 21 February 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

A wave that looks like it produces its own wake, yes.

I spend a lot of time on the water and I've lost track of the number of times my buddies and I have pointed out things that could be confused as 'sea monsters' to the inexperienced - birds, fish, wakes, logs, waves, turtles, light, other boats, etc. etc.

True, but not in this case (as I argue elsewhere on this thread).

Roland

Roland Watson


Loch Ness Monster Blog

#18    hucksterfoot

hucksterfoot

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:57 AM

View Postsilverity, on 22 February 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Hello,

The creature is in the same spot on both pictures when overlaid, it would have moved enough to have been noticed if MacNab had spent X seconds switching, focusing and snapping on another camera. I don't know any more about the Kodak.

Roland

Not if it is dead.

Edited by hucksterfoot, 22 February 2012 - 10:00 AM.


#19    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,552 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:09 PM

View Postsilverity, on 22 February 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

True, but not in this case (as I argue elsewhere on this thread).

Roland

I disagree.


#20    hucksterfoot

hucksterfoot

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:21 PM

One has to do a lot of fudging to get things to line up. Even then it still is distorted.

Posted Image
Mackal fade to Whyte

---
Unless there is more to that Constance Whyte version? then how can the Mackal version be a zoom-in/cut off when the Mackal version has more background (detail the Whyte version doesn't have)

If the Whyte version was cropped at the top? that would explain that.
The negative might have details that the Whyte version doesn't show (at the top) even though the bottom was possibly damaged on MacNab's negative.
So, I guess it could be a zoom-in/cut off.

lol


#21    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:13 PM

Quote

I realise that standing waves and boat wakes do account for some Nessie sightings but I do not think this applies here as

1. There are only two "waves" visible.
2. Where is the rest of the waves that would follow the boat?
3. The largest wave/hump is nearly three feet high!
4. Again, the "waves" are generating their own wake which is not likely.

Two points/questions I think need to be made here:

1- I am not a hydrologist, or a person who studies water and lakes for a living. I can only make observations on my own. I don't know for sure how waves form, how or why they dissipate, or all the ways that wakes and water movements form in large bodies of water. I don't think you are either. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

2- When presented with a picture that could either show some water movement in a large lake, or a giant, prehistoric monster that has not left behind a shred of credible evidence, why on earth would you choose the latter?


#22    hucksterfoot

hucksterfoot

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:48 PM

Quote

The creature is in the same spot on both pictures when overlaid, it would have moved enough to have been noticed if MacNab had spent X seconds switching, focusing and snapping on another camera.

To add: It could be that photo tampering doesn't know how to swim.


#23    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,552 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 22 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Two points/questions I think need to be made here:

1- I am not a hydrologist, or a person who studies water and lakes for a living. I can only make observations on my own. I don't know for sure how waves form, how or why they dissipate, or all the ways that wakes and water movements form in large bodies of water. I don't think you are either. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

2- When presented with a picture that could either show some water movement in a large lake, or a giant, prehistoric monster that has not left behind a shred of credible evidence, why on earth would you choose the latter?

Maybe it's the lead bull bringing his herd down to for the annual salmon run.


#24    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:58 AM

View Postsilverity, on 22 February 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Hello,

The creature is in the same spot on both pictures when overlaid, it would have moved enough to have been noticed if MacNab had spent X seconds switching, focusing and snapping on another camera. I don't know any more about the Kodak.

Roland


It is an interesting take on the photo's, but how do you account for the major impossibilities if you felt your analysis proves a monster lives in the loch? Food and populations factors being the foremost?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#25    hucksterfoot

hucksterfoot

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:13 AM

The distortion is caused by something not being flat. :]
Like when you're taking a photograph of a print.

I was thinking that MacNab had re-photographed photos from two different cameras; and the difference in the lenses causing this distortion. But, I think he was photographing a print ...and that negative was a photograph of a not so flat and plane print.


No huge conspiracy, is needed ...for this photo tampering monster.


If the Mackal Version is zoomed in and the bottom cut, then there is no way information can be added (Info not in the MacNab version) to the top.

Posted Image

MacNab taking photos from a print would explain this though.


#26    silverity

silverity

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 23 February 2012 - 03:17 PM

View Posthucksterfoot, on 22 February 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

One has to do a lot of fudging to get things to line up. Even then it still is distorted.

Posted Image
Mackal fade to Whyte

---
Unless there is more to that Constance Whyte version? then how can the Mackal version be a zoom-in/cut off when the Mackal version has more background (detail the Whyte version doesn't have)

If the Whyte version was cropped at the top? that would explain that.
The negative might have details that the Whyte version doesn't show (at the top) even though the bottom was possibly damaged on MacNab's negative.
So, I guess it could be a zoom-in/cut off.

lol

Yes, Mackal version is a zoom in done by MacNab to remove defects on the negative. No conspiracy ...

Roland

Roland Watson


Loch Ness Monster Blog

#27    silverity

silverity

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 23 February 2012 - 03:20 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 22 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Two points/questions I think need to be made here:

1- I am not a hydrologist, or a person who studies water and lakes for a living. I can only make observations on my own. I don't know for sure how waves form, how or why they dissipate, or all the ways that wakes and water movements form in large bodies of water. I don't think you are either. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

2- When presented with a picture that could either show some water movement in a large lake, or a giant, prehistoric monster that has not left behind a shred of credible evidence, why on earth would you choose the latter?

If this was the only evidence presented for a large creature in Loch Ness, you may have a point. But this picture is taken against decades of eyewitness testimonies, sonar contacts, films and photographs. That changes things.

Whether it is prehistoric or not is another matter. I personally believe there is something large and alive there but not a plesiosaur or that ilk.

Roland

Roland Watson


Loch Ness Monster Blog

#28    silverity

silverity

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 23 February 2012 - 03:21 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 23 February 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

It is an interesting take on the photo's, but how do you account for the major impossibilities if you felt your analysis proves a monster lives in the loch? Food and populations factors being the foremost?


http://lochnessmyste...-nessie_12.html

Roland Watson


Loch Ness Monster Blog

#29    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 23 February 2012 - 03:42 PM

Quote

If this was the only evidence presented for a large creature in Loch Ness, you may have a point. But this picture is taken against decades of eyewitness testimonies, sonar contacts, films and photographs. That changes things.

1- This photo is not evidence of a sea monster. AT all.

2- Where are the other photos and sonar contacts, and films? I'll wager they show nothing conclusive.

Common sense tells you that a giant sea monster living in a lake would not only have a significant impact on the lake's biosystem (which could be observed) but would also leave a giant body around at some point.

I can imagine a giant sea monster dying in a lake... hundreds of turtles and other scavangers would probably be feeding on it for days. I can't imagine that going unnoticed.


#30    hucksterfoot

hucksterfoot

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

View Postsilverity, on 23 February 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Yes, Mackal version is a zoom in done by MacNab to remove defects on the negative. No conspiracy ...

Roland

Well, your Whyte version disagrees with ya. It cannot be a zoom in; not if it's based on that Whyte version photo.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users