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
Still Waters

Is this the Loch Ness Monster?

116 posts in this topic

What struck me reading this thread was: "Wow, people are still ripping on poor old DC?'

Edited by Cyaneyed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the precious few, scientifically speaking, I can tell this thread contains a lot of “I wish I was making easy money” factor.

It’s almost like you are afraid there could be Nessie, because OMG, in that case that guy would totally make more money than me! And he already has better job than me, because I could cruise around with my boat and feel like I’m not doing anything.

Well, buy a boat then and start easy living.

That man didn’t fake anything. He filmed what he filmed, and it’s up to everyone to decide if that’s a log or Nessie or something else. Obviously. I could think it’s my grandma’s broomstick emerging like Excalibur. So what? What threat is my opinion to you if you have your, scientifically proven log? If I try to aggressively mock you into accepting my opinion, then you may feel threatened and return fire. Like I’m about to do. Because you can have your sceptic log, but you can’t have “lets bully them to reason” festival. Some people do not want it to be a log and you are not appointed to make them see the scientific light. Get over it.

Now, what proof do you have he intentionally advertised a log as Nessie? Being ready yourself to fake something is not a proof someone else is ready to do the same, and especially is not the proof he did it. Neither is guessing people are rotten on the average. Not proof. There are exceptions. Always.

So, how come you, who are so refined and defined proof seekers, are not bothered by the same scientific or legal standards when you are guessing, or channelling maybe, what was going on in someone’s mind at the moment he was filming something in the water?

Why is Nessie something to be proven, while actual human can be arbitrary dismissed as liar or crackpot without proving what exactly he believes he saw?

Nessie is not the issue, guys. Double standards are.

I can speak for myself only, and I was basically jackassing around with my commentary. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can speak for myself only, and I was basically jackassing around with my commentary. ;)

I know, what I want is that you go jackass in, say, Goldman Sachs threads, leave guys who have to deal with ****en tourists for living alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, what I want is that you go jackass in, say, Goldman Sachs threads, leave guys who have to deal with ****en tourists for living alone.

All attempts at levity aside. When it comes to stories like this, and phenomenon like Nessie in general, at the end of the day, there is simply NEVER enough proof to go around for anyone's standpoint. Its easy enough to supply a motive that the photographer may have had to hoax a picture or even to just be an enthusiastic proponent of something misidentified, but motive is never enough to convict. Similarly, eyewitness testimony is never enough to convict either.

So can any of us prove that the photographer hoaxed this photo - not likely. However, it is my opinion that the burden of original proof lies with the photographer and his original claim. We've had single photos of "something" in Loch Ness for years and years. Why not a series of photos? Why not video? Almost every digital camera these days has the capability to shoot in burst mode, and to record video. It seems hard to believe that someone with such a demonstrated interest and dedication to Nessie would spend 60 hrs a week on the water and not have provision to take more than one single photo of the beast if he sighted it.

I cannot say that the man hoaxed the photo with any certainty. I will admit that easily. Utimately it matters little one way or the other. Neither side will ever be vindicated. A body will never turn up, a creature will never be captured - those are the only things that would definitively prove its existence. On the flipside, believers will always hold out hope, which will be periodically buoyed by photos like this one turning up...just tantalizing enough for some to believe in.

I respect your viewpoint Helen, even if I won't go so far as to agree with it. Perhaps in your life you've seen something enough to help you cross the line of belief. If so, then I'm actually jealous of you as so far I've not seen enough to make me believe.

Edited by orangepeaceful79
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a fan of Nessie. It was probably the gateway phenomena that led to my interest in the paranormal. Heck, it's probably the reason I learned to read. I cruised from library to library reading grabbing every book as a child and was CONVINCED that it's existence would be proven in my lifetime. Now that I'm old and cynical, it's easy to pass off stuff like this as a way to drum up tourist dollars. I'm torn with "evidence" like this. It's just tantalizing enough to get me holding on to what's left of my waning beliefs. Or maybe an excuse to.

Edited by PlanB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What struck me reading this thread was: "Wow, people are still ripping on poor old DC?'

Well, he was a bit fanatic about seeing Dragons everywhere and everywhen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent read the whole thread, but the story says "he has even had the picture independently verified by a team of US military monster experts" What exactly is a military monster expert? For the loch ness monster to exist, it needs to reproduce, which would mean there should be hundreds of monsters there, which of course couldnt happen because there isnt a big enough food source to sustain a population of such large creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That man didn’t fake anything. He filmed what he filmed, and it’s up to everyone to decide if that’s a log or Nessie or something else. Obviously. I could think it’s my grandma’s broomstick emerging like Excalibur. So what? What threat is my opinion to you if you have your, scientifically proven log? If I try to aggressively mock you into accepting my opinion, then you may feel threatened and return fire. Like I’m about to do. Because you can have your sceptic log, but you can’t have “lets bully them to reason” festival. Some people do not want it to be a log and you are not appointed to make them see the scientific light. Get over it.

Now, what proof do you have he intentionally advertised a log as Nessie? Being ready yourself to fake something is not a proof someone else is ready to do the same, and especially is not the proof he did it. Neither is guessing people are rotten on the average. Not proof. There are exceptions. Always.

So, how come you, who are so refined and defined proof seekers, are not bothered by the same scientific or legal standards when you are guessing, or channelling maybe, what was going on in someone’s mind at the moment he was filming something in the water?

Why is Nessie something to be proven, while actual human can be arbitrary dismissed as liar or crackpot without proving what exactly he believes he saw?

Nessie is not the issue, guys. Double standards are.

UPDATE:

nessiehoax.jpg

http://lochnessmyste...ards-photo.html

Steve Feltham:

Well that is the George Edwards nessie photograph solved.

Turns out he used a fibreglass hump which was being filmed for inclusion in the National Geographic documentary, "the truth behind the loch ness monster" . If you have a copy of this documentary then the first five minutes should be enough to show you what he did, and the final nail in his story is the shot 5.47minutes in that shows the fake hump on the front of his boat!

Add to this the fact that i now have this fake hump, which is an exact match for the one in his photo, and he is blown right out of the water.... Hoaxer.

nessiehoax1.jpg

Here is George Edwards fake hump in the water at a similar angle to how he had it. Note that it is a perfect match.

nessiehoax2.jpg

This is the actual fibreglass hump that George Edwards photographed, and then tried to pass off as a genuine nessie sighting.

http://www.facebook....s/141086595460/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is the George Edwards nessie photograph solved.

Turns out he used a fibreglass hump which was being filmed for inclusion in the National Geographic documentary, "the truth behind the loch ness monster" . If you have a copy of this documentary then the first five minutes should be enough to show you what he did, and the final nail in his story is the shot 5.47minutes in that shows the fake hump on the front of his boat!

Cheers Night Walker, nice to put a lid on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first aspect of the photo that first alerted me to its suspicious nature was the strange reddish colour of the hump. I thought this was notable because not a single eye witness report that I can think of speaks of a reddish hue - it is always spoken of being black, grey and, very very rarely greenish.So here is an example of a Nessie -agnostic comparing the picture with alleged sightings -which I do give some credence to -and, that way, reaching a negative conclusion.

Before the career-cynics who dominate this sight rub their hands with glee too much, it is worth considering the following: the two people most responsible for unmasking this probable hoax are Steve Feltham, a dedicated Nessie hunter, and `Glasgow boy` the creator of an excellent pro-Nessie blog.

In fact there has been a history of `Nessie advocates` being the first ones to expose trickery and deceptions involving the monster.The pro-Nessie journalist Nicholas Witchell was quick to denounce the tomfoolery of `Nessie hunter` Frank Searle and his fake photographs.Then it was Martin Boyd, himself a Nessie witness, who wrote the pamphlet that has probably unmasked the (in)famous `Surgeon's Photo`.

Believing in Lake monsters, like getting married, is `a triumph of hope over expectation` - but people still get married.

Edited by U. N.Owen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Night Walker, nice to put a lid on things.

As someone who has been posting on this forum for many many years (under a different name) I have noticed that there are too many skeptics who, lately, have flooded onto this site and cannot wait to debunk any story or article or personal sighting that is posted.

Gone are the days when we could have fun discussions on UFOs, aliens, ghosts, cryptozoology, time travel and all the other fun things to talk about. Instead these discussions are ruined by skeptics flooding threads and saying things like "It's just dust" or "It's someone in a Halloween mask" or "It's the wind."

These skeptics like to come onto sites such as this and debunk everything (or THINK they have debunked it).

For example, we have people who think they have proven that Nessie doesn't exist just because someone faked a Nessie photo.

I can't understand why skeptics bother posting on a site about things they aren't interested in.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has been posting on this forum for many many years (under a different name) I have noticed that there are too many skeptics who, lately, have flooded onto this site and cannot wait to debunk any story or article or personal sighting that is posted.

Gone are the days when we could have fun discussions on UFOs, aliens, ghosts, cryptozoology, time travel and all the other fun things to talk about. Instead these discussions are ruined by skeptics flooding threads and saying things like "It's just dust" or "It's someone in a Halloween mask" or "It's the wind."

These skeptics like to come onto sites such as this and debunk everything (or THINK they have debunked it).

For example, we have people who think they have proven that Nessie doesn't exist just because someone faked a Nessie photo.

I can't understand why skeptics bother posting on a site about things they aren't interested in.

Being a skeptic does not mean that you are not interested in something. Skeptics like to disect evidence. A good scientist is a skeptic. Believing in everything gets you nowhere.

Would you rather us respond to a statement from nopeda "I saw it on the history channel so it must be true" by typing. Why yes, I think you are correct. The History Channel said ancient aliens built the pyramids, so it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was obvious, wasn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, we have people who think they have proven that Nessie doesn't exist just because someone faked a Nessie photo.

Like most believers, you have it backwards.

The proof lies with those making the claim. If I come on here claiming that I routinely have flaming squirrels shooting out of my ass, it's up to me to provide evidence of that. I can't simply sit back and say "prove that I don't" when someone questions me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most believers, you have it backwards.

The proof lies with those making the claim. If I come on here claiming that I routinely have flaming squirrels shooting out of my ass, it's up to me to provide evidence of that. I can't simply sit back and say "prove that I don't" when someone questions me.

Does it hurt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, we have people who think they have proven that Nessie doesn't exist just because someone faked a Nessie photo.

I can't understand why skeptics bother posting on a site about things they aren't interested in.

All Night Walker done was explain how the photo linked from the OP of this thread was faked. This helped me dismiss one photo, not whether Nessie is real or not. I am not sure if your 'proven that Nessie doesn't exist' comment was aimed at me or NW, but either way neither of us stated Nessie was or wasn't real, just that the image in discussion was fake.

You don't have to understand why skeptics keep on posting on things they probably are interested in (otherwise they wouldn't be reading the thread and researching it further, as with the post I quoted), the same way as I do not have to understand Hebrew.

Don't let the skeptics get you down, you are more than welcome to ignore them, and carry on the discussion with like minded individuals. :)

Edited by Junior Chubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a double standard that anger is directed at skeptics rather than at the guy who deceived them?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a double standard that anger is directed at skeptics rather than at the guy who deceived them?

Nobody likes having their precious proof "blown out of the water" so to speak. easier to shoot the messenger of the inconvenient news than to give up on the silly dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't understand why skeptics bother posting on a site about things they aren't interested in.

Well, there's an astounding observation, presumably based on remote mindreading skills... Yes, I'm certainly posting here because I am disinterested - makes perfect sense..

:cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

Loch Ness Monster photograph branded a hoax by Nessie

Mr Edwards declined to be interviewed on camera, but told STV News that he denied knowing anything about a fake hump.

He said Mr Feltham was entitled to his opinion and said people who make their livelihoods from the Loch should be happy it is in the news.

Are those who have some vested interest (monetary, emotional, etc) in the subject (particularly paranormal subjects) less likely to own up when caught out pranking/hoaxing?

How many times have psychics, mediums, alternate archaeologists, paranormal researchers, monster hunters, etc been caught out pranking/hoaxing and how many have then actually owned up?

Only evidence which is bunk to begin with can be debunked - is this why examples objective evidence of the paranormal is very rare in comparison to the number of personal/subjective claims of the paranormal?

It is all well and good to respect people's personal/subjective experiences yet the objective evidence of such things consistently tells us that the reality of what is going on is markedly different/disconnected to what is claimed is going on...

Please feel free to comment - I am seeking a broad perspective on these...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a skeptic does not mean that you are not interested in something.

Being a skeptic means you are a person who goes round telling believers things like "It's dust" or "It's a double negative" or "It's a fake" or "It's pareidolia" or "It's all a load of rubbish" and usually not having any proof whatsoever or having done any research to back their claims up.

They seem to feel uncomfortable, for whatever reason (probably because it doesn't fit their materialist and comfortable view of the world), in there being discussions about ghosts, UFOs, aliens, fairies, goblins, cryptoids and other things, so they like to flood threads with their very predictable opinions. Nobody can ever have a discussion about any of these things anymore without hundreds of debunkers flooding threads to say "it's just a load of old rubbish" and poking fun at anybody who dares to open a thread about a UFO sighting in the UFOs section of a discussion forum on the paranormal.

Skeptics like to disect evidence.

A skeptic is just someone who "attacks, ridicules, discredits and suppresses anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm."

A good scientist is a skeptic.

I don't see what thet's got to do with anything. The paranormal isn't science.

Believing in everything gets you nowhere.

I'm of the opinion that there are many things in this world that that we and science have no understanding of and which cannot be merely dismissed by naive skeptics who insist that it's merely dust, or camera trickery, or a creaking floorboard, or a fake, or a person's imagination.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i thinks its a fake probably a huge tree log or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof lies with those making the claim.

Is that so that when you skeptics come on and say "On, that's not a ghost orb in that photo, that's a grain of dust" it's YOU who don't have to provide the proof?

How convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody likes having their precious proof "blown out of the water" so to speak. easier to shoot the messenger of the inconvenient news than to give up on the silly dream.

So what proof is there that Nessie doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what proof is there that Nessie doesn't exist?

You mean beside no bodies, alive or dead? Or even a physical sample of one? Youre right, none I guess.

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.