Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Dan Dare

Loch Ness monster

53 posts in this topic

What do you think it might be?

The Loch Ness Monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was fine with light and perspective. I've seen lots of large fish, including sturgeon and have quite a few pictures of them coming to the boat after being hooked.

It don't look like a sturgeon to me. For those to be the ridge spines on the sturgeon's back it would have to be huge, way more huge than they already are, and you would definitely see the rest of the fish if it was that close to the surface.

It doesn't look that large to me, but there's nothing to scale it too. My guess-- large eel and I can't rule out some photoshop work, the light patches look funny for the lighting.

Edited by Taut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone second guesses anything, it's fake until proven otherwise. Personally... it doesn't look like "Nessie" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone second guesses anything, it's fake until proven otherwise. Personally... it doesn't look like "Nessie" to me.

Then the moon landing was faked, I knew it!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the moon landing was faked, I knew it!! :lol:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-cough-thecreatureinthepicisaneeel-cough-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moray_eel

=T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there was a Loch Ness monster, which probably was an ancient sea creature dinosaur, but I think its dead now, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to be one of the more realistic possibilities:

http://lochnessmyste...-giant-eel.html

It is not a moray eel in the photo. I doubt a moray eel has set fin in that lake for several thousand years at least - unless it was wearing a wetsuit.

As for other eels, the largest species applicable to this area is the conger eel, which can reach at least 200lbs in weight, though the average eel is much smaller. As a marine animal though, it would have trouble living in the loch permanently. European freshwater eels do not attain anything like that size, with a 10lb fish being huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The light source is at ten o'clock, except for 'Nessie's' humps, which are lit from three o'clock. Clever, these lake monsters.

Using Orson Wells voice, "they can bend time and light."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmmmmmm i kinda agree..........doesn't look like the great beast at All. sorry dude. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how come no EVVVVER has ANY clear photos or video, if there was an actual nessi or big foot wouldnt the news be all over it and why is it that when someone says "omg I have proof" its always fuzzy an can never see a clear anything???

just want solid,clear untouched proof.and more than just a foot print or a fin sticking outa the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<_< to me it just looks like part of the waves with something floating along with it , anyways does not look big enough to be the loch ness monster from the pictures ive seen -_- but it looks believable in a way just not in my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how come no EVVVVER has ANY clear photos or video, if there was an actual nessi or big foot wouldnt the news be all over it and why is it that when someone says "omg I have proof" its always fuzzy an can never see a clear anything???

just want solid,clear untouched proof.and more than just a foot print or a fin sticking outa the water.

I took a photo of a lake monster once. I had my trusty pentax SLR but didn't even think of a zoom lens back then. The thing was about 500mts away rolling around in the middle of Chinnock Lagoon less than a k from my house. Photo turned out to be just a black dot :hmm: The thing was about the width of a football and looping out of the water about a foot. We have world record size eels here but it was most likely a seal. My point is that photography is never easy especially of animals at more than 100 yards away.

cheers, zed who photographs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing constructive to say about the photo - except that I'm just pleased that it exists .It has put the Loch Ness phenomena back in focus after something of a hiatus. One issue that becomes really apparent on this and other threads about Loch Ness is that posters are uniformly either automatically sceptical or supercilious about the whole thing. Are there really no die-hard Nessiephiles out there? If there are, then they are sitting back while people are parading a whole lot of old chestnuts on-line. It is too wearisome to try to sort through them all here... but, for example, the one about there being NO sonar readings that appear to show something in the Loch is manifestly counterfactual, as anyone who has read more than one book on the subject could tell you.

I do not really count myself as a Nessiephile, but I do sort of miss them. I am just about old enough to recall the Nessie hunting boys of the seventies and what a great deal of fun they were. They could give the modern day conspiracy-heads a run for their money that's for sure. Those guys were more hardware than software and got their hands dirty!

Come on Nicholas Witchell: leave them blasted Royals to it and get your ass back up to the Loch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there really no die-hard Nessiephiles out there?

Possibly, but either their numbers have greatly dwindled, or they have gotten quieter, since 2003, when a sponsored full search was held at the Loch Ness, with 600 strategically placed sonar beams with satellite tracking. "The search had enough resolution to pick up a small buoy. No animal of any substantial size was found whatsoever and despite high hopes, the scientists involved in the expedition admitted that this essentially proved the Loch Ness monster was only a myth." That quote from the Wikipedia page on Nessie.

Edited by Jerry Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the famous surgeons photo it amazes me how quickly we accept something is a fake. I mean the person who took the picture and was there never said it was a fake, yet anybody who comes forward after and claims fake it is case closed.

This just shows how the odds are of finding evidence are against you. Not only will you be ridiculed from the beginning you will have armies of people trying to reconstruct a situation to make you out to be a liar. Once you die that is it, only one person has to come forward and say you told them you faked it and then it becomes concrete proof.

It is a shame an equal number of people could not come forward and test scenario's to see if a picture could be feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the famous surgeons photo it amazes me how quickly we accept something is a fake. I mean the person who took the picture and was there never said it was a fake, yet anybody who comes forward after and claims fake it is case closed.

This just shows how the odds are of finding evidence are against you. Not only will you be ridiculed from the beginning you will have armies of people trying to reconstruct a situation to make you out to be a liar.

If your presumed evidence is of a giant sea monster that has been able to somehow live in hiding in a lake for hundreds of years, despite all the people searching for it, yes, I agree, the odds in getting people to believe it are stacked against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Skookum! - although I personally never gave all that much credence to the Surgeon's photo. It's like the Ness equivalent of the Bigfoot shot by Patterson: too sensational and overblown too elucidate anything.Once something becomes iconic, the truth gets lost along the road. My favourite shot is the satellite picture discovered by a security guard a few years ago. This shows an outline of an apparent creature nearby a cruise ship.It is all the more compelling because it was found rather than deliberately taken. It has never been explained as far as I know.(It's probably on this site somewhere. If you find it, look at the side of the boat, not the boat itself.)

As for Jerry Only: I presume you are making reference to the BBC's attempted demolition job on the Ness phenomena of a few years back. Again it's hotly disputed (never, incidentally, rely on Wikipedia as your ONLY source of information: Rule One in any serious research!) Adrian Shine, the Loch's resident marine biologist ( with a reputation of something of a sceptic himself) had done a sonar sweep himself years earlier and this had apparently shown the presence of something. It really comes down to how much weight you are prepared give to sonar technology. I'm not sure the military would want to rely on it alone when doing surveillance, for example.

Also there are different ways you can read the data, viz:

* The creature may have hiding places in the form of underwater caves. Some even suggest that it can come and go from the sea via undiscovered tunnel routes.

* The creature may have become extinct. This would also account for the sharp drop in sightings in recent years. (I think this one is perfectly feasible).

*The creature may not be corporeal. It could be something along the lines of a `ghost` or time dilation, and hence would elude sonar.

Sorry if I an coming across as a wishful thinking die hard Nessiephile, but I really don't think that seventy odd years of eye witness reports, often from experienced observers and including some mass sightings, can be so easily dismissed - especially as there are Lake monster rumours in many of the Lakes of the Northern Hemisphere.

Also, people who wish to seriously discuss the phenomena should read some BOOKS on it and not just pick up a bit of internet back-chat. (A good start would be `The Loch Ness Enigma` by H. Bauer from 1988.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote edit turned into double post

Edited by Jerry Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(never, incidentally, rely on Wikipedia as your ONLY source of information: Rule One in any serious research!)

You say that like the information was false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHMITTHEAD- I Totally Agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be anything, really. There isn't much scale to work with, is there? It could be fish, rocks, garbage in the water...Nessie would be close to the bottom of the list of possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real evidence that can be used at Loch Ness is the sonar findings... and they're inconclusive. The better, and later, sonar scans don't find the same shapes earlier did, and sonar can represent schools of fish as large objects.

It's worth noting to that the geology of Loch Ness doesn't support the idea of caves, and intense mappings of the Loch have not revealed any caves.

Many sightings seem to be of phantom waves, caused by the wedge shape of the lake reflecting boat wake back up to the surface.

(Similar to another famous glacier lake Lake Champlain, where similar sightings occur.)

Simply put sightings are not reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the famous surgeons photo it amazes me how quickly we accept something is a fake. I mean the person who took the picture and was there never said it was a fake, yet anybody who comes forward after and claims fake it is case closed.

This just shows how the odds are of finding evidence are against you. Not only will you be ridiculed from the beginning you will have armies of people trying to reconstruct a situation to make you out to be a liar. Once you die that is it, only one person has to come forward and say you told them you faked it and then it becomes concrete proof.

It is a shame an equal number of people could not come forward and test scenario's to see if a picture could be feasible.

Hi skookum,

I thought the surgeon's photo was pretty well debunked as a swimmer with arm raised. Interesting/Fun thread guys. I remember all the sonar work on Loch Ness and the controvercy surrounding much of it.

cheers zedNuts, revisiting the mysteries of his youth.

14-03-1994%20loch%20ness%20monster%20surgeons%20photo%20hoax%20weatherall%20wilson%20spurling%20(T)135.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.