silverity Posted February 20, 2012 #1 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I did this analysis of the Peter MacNab (Nessie near the Castle) photograph which IMO boosts its credibility. Article Roland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Waters Posted February 20, 2012 #2 Share Posted February 20, 2012 silverity, Is that your blog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hucksterfoot Posted February 20, 2012 #3 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) 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 February 20, 2012 by hucksterfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverity Posted February 20, 2012 Author #4 Share Posted February 20, 2012 silverity, Is that your blog? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neognosis Posted February 20, 2012 #5 Share Posted February 20, 2012 That's a nice photo of what is more likely a wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike G Posted February 20, 2012 #6 Share Posted February 20, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted February 20, 2012 #7 Share Posted February 20, 2012 But........... it's a wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverity Posted February 21, 2012 Author #8 Share Posted February 21, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverity Posted February 21, 2012 Author #9 Share Posted February 21, 2012 But........... it's a wave. A wave that produces it own wake? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Ford Posted February 21, 2012 #10 Share Posted February 21, 2012 A wave made by a monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hucksterfoot Posted February 21, 2012 #11 Share Posted February 21, 2012 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. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted February 21, 2012 #12 Share Posted February 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted February 21, 2012 #13 Share Posted February 21, 2012 A wave made by a monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Ford Posted February 21, 2012 #14 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Plus, I'm going to add what I was also thinking: :] good video, that it pretty much sums it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverity Posted February 22, 2012 Author #15 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverity Posted February 22, 2012 Author #16 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverity Posted February 22, 2012 Author #17 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hucksterfoot Posted February 22, 2012 #18 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) 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 February 22, 2012 by hucksterfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted February 22, 2012 #19 Share Posted February 22, 2012 True, but not in this case (as I argue elsewhere on this thread). Roland I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hucksterfoot Posted February 22, 2012 #20 Share Posted February 22, 2012 One has to do a lot of fudging to get things to line up. Even then it still is distorted. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neognosis Posted February 22, 2012 #21 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I realise that standing waves and boat wakes do account for some Nessie sightings but I do not think this applies here as1. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hucksterfoot Posted February 22, 2012 #22 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted February 22, 2012 #23 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted February 23, 2012 #24 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hucksterfoot Posted February 23, 2012 #25 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. MacNab taking photos from a print would explain this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now