Comments on: Best Nessie Photo Ever?

By: Redrose999

Redrose999 — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:48:55 +0000

Looks like a turned over boat with some kind of "fabric skin" on it. Not sure if I'm convinced it's a monster. I suppose it could be a sturgeon, they do get those humps on their backs. Credits are on the page of the photo.

By: wuffing

wuffing — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:52:58 +0000

Richard888 wrote “The circumstances that make this one special are the fact that it was taken by someone who knows Loch Ness, that he sent it to a lab for examination and that he controlled its release for maximum impact.”

On the other hand, he is also known to sell a staged Loch Ness photo for commercial gain, presents no evidence of any analysis, and has been selling this (new) image in postcard form on his boat for months.

By: The Cowboy and the Vampire via Facebook

The Cowboy and the Vampire via Facebook — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:41:05 +0000

According to the vampires in our book, “Nessie is most certainly real.”

By: fmurphy1970

fmurphy1970 — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:17:25 +0000

In this photograph, Urquart Castle is on the right, which means that the viewer is facing south looking towards Urquart Bay. I am very familiar with the road which runs on that side of the loch, and there is really only one place on that road that would give an un-obscured view of the castle from a similar perspective as the photo. Most of that road is heavily lined with trees right down to the shore obscuring the view. There is one spot along this road that would allow a person to take a picture of the castle with similar size/perspective to Mr Edward's photograph. click here. However, I believe that in order to have a clear view of the mountains on the left, you would need to go right to the loch shore, and so there would be less sense of 'height' in the photograph. If a six foot tall man was standing on the deck of a boat that was at least 4 feet out of the water, then the camera would be at least 12 feet above the water. This seems to me to be consistent with the published photograph. All of this leads me to the conclusion that the viewer must have been in the water, just to the north end of Urquart Bay pointing towards Temple Pier, verifying Mr Edwards claimed position. Also for those who think it might be a rock, this loch is 1000ft deep in it's centre and even 20 feet out from shore it can drop to over a hundred feet deep. It simply can't be a rock because there are no rocks sticking up out of the middle of Loch Ness. I don't know what this object is and I don't know if it's Nessie, but I do think it was taken at the spot where Mr Edward's claims it was taken.

By: dconstrukt

dconstrukt — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:47:21 +0000

LOL @ this photo

By: Fred123

Fred123 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:24:11 +0000

I was completely unaware that the U.S. even had teams of “military cryptid experts”. Maybe I wrong about the next replacement for the red menace being space guys. It looks like the U’S military is either preparing for the boogey man menace or this guy is just another publicity seeker. Seeing that he’s likely to gain a lot more from this story than the bigfoot in the freezer guys did financially, I’d bet pretty heavily on the latter explanation.

By: kingofaquaria

kingofaquaria — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:56:18 +0000

It’s interesting that George Edwards and Sandra Mansi have something in common: they both took excellent photos of a water monster but they only took ONE photo. Edwards is a good promoter . . . he owns his own boat cruise business on Loch Ness and the world-wide publicity he has received from this single photo should keep him in business for a long time.

By: Richard888

Richard888 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:27:13 +0000

One more thing I’d like to add…

I’m a little skeptical about this being the best picture ever of Nessie.

Once a cryptid picture has passed through the scrutiny of photo experts, like this purportedly has, in order for it to be called very good it should satisfy some basic criteria such as…

1) Clarity. No fuzziness or other artifacts that obscure detail.

2) More information. It should extend previously known information. For example, if previous pictures showed a hump, a very good one should show hump, neck and maybe tail.

3) Full view. A very good picture should show as much of a full view as possible, which I know is much to ask for a submerged creature.

In this case, we have a relatively clear picture of a limited part of a cryptid – the hump. It is like having a clear picture of a Bigfoot’s back and nothing else.

So because this picture is strong on Point #1 but falls short on Points #2 & #3, I’d be conservative with calling it the “best ever”. Aren’t there unverified and possibly authentic pictures of Nessie that show fuller body, head and neck?

By: Richard888

Richard888 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:59:13 +0000

Well, this is truly exciting news!

If this can be called the best Nessie photo, my guess is that it is not because of some intrinsic quality but because of the circumstances surrounding it. There are other clear and revealing Nessie pictures that in my knowledge have not been officially debunked. The circumstances that make this one special are the fact that it was taken by someone who knows Loch Ness, that he sent it to a lab for examination and that he controlled its release for maximum impact.

By the way, what are military cryptid experts?

By: BobbyMadison

BobbyMadison — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:26:59 +0000

Well, it would be swell if this were Nessie, but there are lots of red flags. In the first place, this guy features in several documentaries about the animal, and brandishes ANOTHER photo he took, of a single hump, which he disingenuously states could be the monster, though he doesn’t ‘claim’ it is. Huh??

What are the odds of the same person taking two crisp photos of the LNM, who also happens to make his livelihood taking people out on his boat?

Why is the angle to the object so high if he claims he’s on the back of his boat? He has a digital camera and only takes one photo….. He gave it to crypto experts at NASA and it’s been verified as an authentic photograph of a cryptid???

This sounds more like Frank Searle than anything. Wish it were real, but . . . .