Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New Loch Ness Monster photographs emerge


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Original Papameter Reading (OPR):

Cryptid 15%    Hoax 10%   Natural 75%

 

New Papameter Reading (NPR):

Cryptid 15%  Hoax 30%   Natural  55%

Both wrong, it’s 100% a hoax. Get a new meter.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Both wrong, it’s 100% a hoax. Get a new meter.

Perhaps that’s true in this case. But why bother hoaxing for such a weak weak photo anyway? Not much of an article either. Not really worth a thread in the end or use of Papameter battery time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Perhaps that’s true in this case. But why bother hoaxing for such a weak weak photo anyway? Not much of an article either. Not really worth a thread in the end or use of Papameter battery time.

Not “perhaps”, it is a hoax.

55 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

This one’s 100% a photoshopped hoax. A Twitter user found the original photo.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jersayhoughton/status/1275789943009411072

FD7D10BB-6830-484C-8E6B-1C3212BECCAE.jpeg.93528673df4065b4f85493a9a8064c3a.jpeg

08F83B02-45E7-4611-8136-07401C55683D.jpeg.a907dee320d9e2849f16c72a925b8277.jpeg

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnoferox said:

Not “perhaps”, it is a hoax.

 

Well the Papameter readings need to add a ‘Confidence Factor‘ reading. The more input information given the higher the ‘Confidence Factor’. An uninformative teensy article like that would have a low ‘Confidence Factor’ while a subject I’ve studied for decades would have a high factor.

The new meter will be named ‘The Papameter 2.0’.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well the Papameter readings need to add a ‘Confidence Factor‘ reading. The more input information given the higher the ‘Confidence Factor’. An uninformative teensy article like that would have a low ‘Confidence Factor’ while a subject I’ve studied for decades would have a high factor.

The new meter will be named ‘The Papameter 2.0’.

Sorry, but your meter was broken from day 1.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Sorry, but your meter was broken from day 1.

The Papameter was darn good. Needed a ‘Confidence Factor’ reading though. 
 

I bet there’s a lot of people chomping at the bit for ‘The Papameter 2.0’!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The Papameter was darn good. Needed a ‘Confidence Factor’ reading though. 
 

I bet there’s a lot of people chomping at the bit for ‘The Papameter 2.0’!

Your papameter was broken from day 1. Let's check mine

Meter from papageorg1 100% broken from day 1. 0% it will ever be fixed

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Perhaps that’s true in this case. But why bother hoaxing for such a weak weak photo anyway? Not much of an article either. Not really worth a thread in the end or use of Papameter battery time.

 

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The Papameter was darn good. Needed a ‘Confidence Factor’ reading though. 
 

I bet there’s a lot of people chomping at the bit for ‘The Papameter 2.0’!

I gotta mess with you just a bit here, just funning but, dammmmmmn, ( in best will smith voice)

You are reluctantly willing so say hoax is possible here, well gee the hoax matches the spots on the fish carno posted, fish spots are unique, if its not shopped then how did that catfish go from being caught at an eariler date to swimming in ness?

Reminds me of that peru alien mummy fraud you thought was a eeal alien,

Will papa meter 2.0 be like windows vista, ME or 8?

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 

I gotta mess with you just a bit here, just funning but, dammmmmmn, ( in best will smith voice)

You are reluctantly willing so say hoax is possible here, well gee the hoax matches the spots on the fish carno posted, fish spots are unique, if its not shopped then how did that catfish go from being caught at an eariler date to swimming in ness?

Reminds me of that peru alien mummy fraud you thought was a eeal alien,

Will papa meter 2.0 be like windows vista, ME or 8?

 

Got to challenge your comments on the alien mummy. You never even understood what particular mummy I was talking about. The Papameter 2.0 is on to you.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Got to challenge your comments on the alien mummy. You never even understood what particular mummy I was talking about. The Papameter 2.0 is on to you.

Perhaps you never understood that the alleged alien mummies were a hoax that included desecration of burial sights and human remains, involving Jamie Maussan and other known charlatans, i recall you never admitting the mummies werent alien.

Now in the interest of accuracy if i am wrong you can clear it up right here and state the mummies were not alien or if you have proof from scientific tests that any mummy anywhere in the world has been proven non human alien in origin i beg you please go up date that thread with that proof, becaused i missed it.

No 2.0 needed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Perhaps you never understood that the alleged alien mummies were a hoax that included desecration of burial sights and human remains, involving Jamie Maussan and other known charlatans, i recall you never admitting the mummies werent alien.

Now in the interest of accuracy if i am wrong you can clear it up right here and state the mummies were not alien or if you have proof from scientific tests that any mummy anywhere in the world has been proven non human alien in origin i beg you please go up date that thread with that proof, becaused i missed it.

No 2.0 needed.

That alien mummy ‘Maria’ was an Unexplained Mystery to this date. You never distinguished between anything In the fog. 
 

I tried. Not trying again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

That alien mummy ‘Maria’ was an Unexplained Mystery to this date. You never distinguished between anything In the fog. 
 

I tried. Not trying again.

 

If you mean the exact way they mutated and desacrated  human remains perhaps its not fully explained if you mean its not human, is  alien or other worldly, lets see proof.

No fog.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stereologist said:

Your papameter was broken from day 1. Let's check mine

Meter from papageorg1 100% broken from day 1. 0% it will ever be fixed

Well, it's not impossible that the debunker used photoshop to create a picture of a catfish with exactly the same spot pattern on its back as the real Nessie in the photo.

Rabbit Hole Harte

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Harte said:

Well, it's not impossible that the debunker used photoshop to create a picture of a catfish with exactly the same spot pattern on its back as the real Nessie in the photo.

Rabbit Hole Harte

Maybe the fish is a doppelganger

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, the13bats said:

 

If you mean the exact way they mutated and desacrated  human remains perhaps its not fully explained if you mean its not human, is  alien or other worldly, lets see proof.

Yes that is your simplistic distortion I was alluding to.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Wife has come up with a great one. She used to do a lot of fishing with her Dad, I showed her the picture and she immediately said it�s a speckled trout. I think she�s got it!

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Torviking said:

My Wife has come up with a great one. She used to do a lot of fishing with her Dad, I showed her the picture and she immediately said it�s a speckled trout. I think she�s got it!

Wels Catfish.

killer-fish-wels-catfish-600x400.jpg

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Harte said:

Wels Catfish.

killer-fish-wels-catfish-600x400.jpg

Harte

In a documentry i heard that nessie hunter who lives in a trailer on the shore say they did many decades back release wels in ness for sport fishing, and he thinks wels makes for a lot of nessie sightings, even though the little cartoon figure he makes are sells look like thr classic "monster" image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes that is your simplistic distortion I was alluding to.

Okay so in all that fog you just puffed...

i-dont-understand-a-word-you-just-said1_52b35ef488e59d6cec7efcef.jpg.f5057eb1d2a15054bccc87719f70b2e5.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jbondo said:

I put the photos into my editing program and overlaid them. The patterns on the back are not only close, but an exact match.

I am disappointed in the quality of the hoax, given today's tech.

I mean two pub buddies were able to give us the crop circles with nothing but a board and a rope...back in the '70s.

Edited by GlitterRose
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see the origin of the pic used for the photomanipulation. Hoaxers definitely need to step up their game. :)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks more like an air brushed image of an Atlantic Salmon to me.

 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.