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 0
silverity

Famous Nessie Photo Boosted

31 posts in this topic

I did this analysis of the Peter MacNab (Nessie near the Castle) photograph which IMO boosts its credibility.

Article

Roland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silverity, Is that your blog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did this analysis of the Peter MacNab (Nessie near the Castle) photograph which IMO boosts its credibility.

Article

Roland

So you don't think the discrepancy between the Whyte version and Mackal version has anything to do with the camera lens?

There is much more visible in the background in the Mackal version.

I'm thinking two different cameras with different mm lenses.

What size lens was on his fixed-focus Kodak? Do you know what model it was?

Reason of edit: completely massacred the word discrepancy. :]

Edited by hucksterfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silverity, Is that your blog?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice photo of what is more likely a wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did this analysis of the Peter MacNab (Nessie near the Castle) photograph which IMO boosts its credibility.

Article

Roland

Just one question: How much is the book you are undoubtedly trying to sell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But........... it's a wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question: How much is the book you are undoubtedly trying to sell?

Not a lot and what I spend on trips and equipment to Loch Ness outweighs it substantially!

Roland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But........... it's a wave.

A wave that produces it own wake?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wave made by a monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, I'm going to add what I was also thinking:

I'm thinking two different cameras with different mm lenses.

...and of course, the slight different orientation when taking a picture of the same thing; with two cameras, that have different lenses.

:]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wave that produces it own wake?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wave made by a monster.

:lol::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, I'm going to add what I was also thinking:

:]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think the discrepancy between the Whyte version and Mackal version has anything to do with the camera lens?

There is much more visible in the background in the Mackal version.

I'm thinking two different cameras with different mm lenses.

What size lens was on his fixed-focus Kodak? Do you know what model it was?

Reason of edit: completely massacred the word discrepancy. :]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Roland

I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Loch_Mess.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Lochmess.jpg

MacNab taking photos from a print would explain this though.

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 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.