Loch Ness skipper captures 25ft image on sonar

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Professional sonar systems might have a recording facility, but I believe this was just a simple fish-finder ? So I doubt it. 

It has to be taped, RG. How would they have a photo of the readout when they said that when he repositioned the boat it had gone by already. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Resume]

Some depth finders units such as Humminbird's Helix allow anglers to make and save screen-shots of soundings on a SD card.

https://www.humminbird.com/support/faqs/SnapshootSonarRecordings

Edited August 13, 2019 by Resume

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It has to be taped, RG. How would they have a photo of the readout when they said that when he repositioned the boat it had gone by already. 

Tape ? TAPE ? LOL.... why not film, while we're at it ? 

The image could be sampled at 50Hz and streamed onto an SD card  So you could get an "action replay" of events. However, I don't know whether simple fish-finder units have such capabilities ? 

[Dynamo X]

On 8/11/2019 at 5:31 PM, RoofGardener said:

The entrance to Loch Ness (strictly speaking, the Caledonian Canal) is controlled by locks. 

Pleaosaurs are unlikely to have lock passes ! 

The River Ness runs from Loch Ness to the Beauly Firth, an arm of the North Sea, and is only about 6 miles or so long. Its not a very deep river but heavy rain can cause occasional increases in depth, potentially allowing larger marine life passage to the Loch. There's also the theory that juvenile creatures could enter the Loch at any time and grow larger once there if for some reason they decide to remain.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Tape ? TAPE ? LOL.... why not film, while we're at it ? 

The image could be sampled at 50Hz and streamed onto an SD card  So you could get an "action replay" of events. However, I don't know whether simple fish-finder units have such capabilities ? 

Well, maybe you are right but if I were in the business of hunting Nessie, I would like to think that being able to record all such sonar sessions would be a must because nobody believes "the big fish that got away" stories. It's good for advertising, ka-CHING

[Resume]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Tape ? TAPE ? LOL.... why not film, while we're at it ? 

The image could be sampled at 50Hz and streamed onto an SD card  So you could get an "action replay" of events. However, I don't know whether simple fish-finder units have such capabilities ? 

See post directly north of yours.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, maybe you are right but if I were in the business of hunting Nessie, I would like to think that being able to record all such sonar sessions would be a must because nobody believes "the big fish that got away" stories. It's good for advertising, ka-CHING

Fair point... but... was this boat in the business of hunting for Nessie, or was it just a tourist fishing boat ?? 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Fair point... but... was this boat in the business of hunting for Nessie, or was it just a tourist fishing boat ?? 

Well, RG, of course they are in the tourist business. But, if you had the one boat on Loch Ness that caught this incredible sighting, imagine what that does for your business and of course, the loch business as a whole, too. Free advertising all over the globe on that one blip, so long as you have a sonar record of it to take a pic of. 

[RoofGardener]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, RG, of course they are in the tourist business. But, if you had the one boat on Loch Ness that caught this incredible sighting, imagine what that does for your business and of course, the loch business as a whole, too. Free advertising all over the globe on that one blip, so long as you have a sonar record of it to take a pic of. 

It would be interesting to see if there has been any follow-up to this story ? 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

56 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

It would be interesting to see if there has been any follow-up to this story ? 

What can they do with it, RG? it is what it is... just a glimpse of "something" - be it school of fish, singular creature, you can't even tell that much. Maybe a follow up in the sense of another spotting, perhaps. but this is unfortunately, an interesting nothingburger

[stereologist]

Just took a quick tour of loch ness sonar images and there are quite a few similar images to be seen. Then again it looks similar to schools of fish in lakes and oceans.

[Trelane]

…....but definitely NOT a plesiosaur.

[Robotic Jew]

I keep thinking this says "loch ness stripper..." now that id be happy to search for!

[Dradan]

Its interesting. But it could be anyting, really.

[skookum]

The thing about Loch Ness is there isn't a lot of fish in it. Of course that makes it unlikely that it is able to sustain such large creatures.

However it probably rules out a school of fish. Visibility goes to virtually zero after just a few feet due to the high Peat content. 

[Big Jim]

On 8/11/2019 at 2:46 AM, Trelane said:

That's an easy one. They've been extinct for millions of years.

So was the coelacanth.  If there is a creature in the loch there is no reason to limit the possibilities to known fauna.  New species, both live and fossilized, are still being discovered.  There are also species that can exist in, or adapt to, both fresh and salt water.  Improbable does not mean impossible.

[Trelane]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

So was the coelacanth.  If there is a creature in the loch there is no reason to limit the possibilities to known fauna.  New species, both live and fossilized, are still being discovered.  There are also species that can exist in, or adapt to, both fresh and salt water.  Improbable does not mean impossible.

Ok, that sounds great and briefs well. however, there is no evidence or proof of a plesiosaur anywhere until proposed for Loch Ness in the late 70's. Then suddenly there were dinosaurs swimming in lakes around the world.

That is with still no proof anywhere to back any claims up. So yeah, a fish? Sure. A large aquatic animal that required to surface to breathe still exists? No.

[Big Jim]

3 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Ok, that sounds great and briefs well. however, there is no evidence or proof of a plesiosaur anywhere until proposed for Loch Ness in the late 70's. Then suddenly there were dinosaurs swimming in lakes around the world.

That is with still no proof anywhere to back any claims up. So yeah, a fish? Sure. A large aquatic animal that required to surface to breathe still exists? No.

That's why I suggest if there is something in there it could very well be something as yet undiscovered, living or dead.  We know of plesiosaurs and whales.  We don't know what is in the loch, if anything is.

[stereologist]

20 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Ok, that sounds great and briefs well. however, there is no evidence or proof of a plesiosaur anywhere until proposed for Loch Ness in the late 70's. Then suddenly there were dinosaurs swimming in lakes around the world.

That is with still no proof anywhere to back any claims up. So yeah, a fish? Sure. A large aquatic animal that required to surface to breathe still exists? No.

Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. They are marine reptiles. Then again reporting that people thought they were dinosaurs is probably true.

[Trelane]

11 hours ago, Big Jim said:

That's why I suggest if there is something in there it could very well be something as yet undiscovered, living or dead.  We know of plesiosaurs and whales.  We don't know what is in the loch, if anything is.

My exception to the whole lake monster thing is the lack of evidence despite attempts to find it.  No one was looking for a coelacanth, they just happened across one. There have been dozens of expeditions to Loch Ness and have found nothing.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

My exception to the whole lake monster thing is the lack of evidence despite attempts to find it.  No one was looking for a coelacanth, they just happened across one. There have been dozens of expeditions to Loch Ness and have found nothing.

True, Trelane but what do they have to search for it with, sonar...?  You can see who reliable that is  lol

[Big Jim]

7 hours ago, Trelane said:

My exception to the whole lake monster thing is the lack of evidence despite attempts to find it.  No one was looking for a coelacanth, they just happened across one. There have been dozens of expeditions to Loch Ness and have found nothing.

True, but they had been looking for fish for centuries.  Every day they would haul in nets full of all kinds of fish.  The suddenly...  It just goes to show how elusive nature can be.  Several years ago a rare woodpecker that was thought to be extinct was sighted in Arkansas, I believe.  Nobody had seen one for decades, then one day...  Now imagine how many birdwatchers there are in Arkansas (or was it Missouri?)  Obviously there had to be more than one, and most likely more than one mating pair to continue for all those years, but no one had seen one.  My bet is always with nature.  

Edited August 24, 2019 by Big Jim
typo

[Dejarma]

16 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Several years ago a rare woodpecker that was thought to be extinct was sighted in Arkansas, I believe.  Nobody had seen one for decades, then one day...  Now imagine how many birdwatchers there are in Arkansas (or was it Missouri?)  Obviously there had to be more than one, and most likely more than one mating pair to continue for all those years, but no one had seen one.  My bet is always with nature.

all due respect mate but a bird not being spotted for years in massive areas like Arkansas or Missouri is a little different compared to a large creature in an area the size of loch ness

[Big Jim]

2 hours ago, Dejarma said:

all due respect mate but a bird not being spotted for years in massive areas like Arkansas or Missouri is a little different compared to a large creature in an area the size of loch ness

I get your point.  I was only trying to illustrate that just because we're not aware of something doesn't mean it's not there.  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

42 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I get your point.  I was only trying to illustrate that just because we're not aware of something doesn't mean it's not there.  

Point well taken.  People will say that Arkansas has been thoroughly explored, but that still does not mean you can see everything at the same time in Arkansas. Animals can move out of an area you are about to explore only to have them come back in right afterward. Or you could have one of those birds in a tree right in front of you and not know it. And how many trees are there in Arkansas? Sheesh.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't there parts of Arkansas that have not been explored?