Comments on: New Loch Ness Photo

By: Dr. Strings

Dr. Strings — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:54:18 +0000

I thought it looked like a tongue too, lol. Sigh, just another so-called “photograph of something in Loch Ness” that looks like absolutely nothing. You can’t even say it’s an ambiguous photo of something, since it looks like absolutely nothing. How you could construe it to be anything more than a picture of darkness or a black surface of some sort taken by a camera with a peanut butter smudge on the lens is beyond me, but somebody will walk around for the rest of their life claiming they have a picture of Nessie.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:26:53 +0000

Actually, I think it’s a pink and yellow plaid woozle from Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day…must have been coming up for honey…

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:25:24 +0000

Sad thing about pictures…

The account sounds reasonable, but without anything better than that, it doesn’t mean much on the evidence front.

As far as the photo…I’m disturbed too by the lack of water reflection…could be that the camera was too far away and only caught black because the surface was calm, and only the back side of something that was more rounded reflected light for the camera…not saying it was Nessie…could be a hundred things…or hundred and one…

I was afraid to look because of the caption heading of this thread, but I had to…

By: Dj Plasmic Nebula

Dj Plasmic Nebula — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:05:19 +0000

looks like an animal to me.

i see a face on that.

eye, trunk

By: sschaper

sschaper — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:28:34 +0000

A Narn cruiser that had a fender-bender?

A sea-slug?

By: drjon

drjon — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:12:34 +0000

Goodness knows what this is. Given the location of the report, one would have to say it’s “a Loch Ness Monster”, but given we don’t actually know what a “Loch Ness Monster” actually is, were kinda stuck.

The report is very interesting. Assuming it’s not a hoax, and assuming the “Loch Ness Monster” here was as big as the witnesses’ impressions suggest, I’m not at all surprised that the image appears the way it does. I’ve taken digital photos of things at night with crap cameras and lousy flashes, and that’s what this looks like to me.

It’s an interesting report. The believers will accept it at face value. The skeptoids will woo at what fools the believers are. And the scientists will add it to the pile of “interesting but inconclusive data”.

By: jerrywayne

jerrywayne — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:59:26 +0000

According to the photographer, something was splashing around in the loch and he may have unwittingly taken a photograph of it. However, there does not appear to be any water in the photo: no displaced water, no splash of water washing over the side of the object, no reflecting water or wetness, etc.

If this picture had been taken in 1933 or 1934, it probably would have been used for decades as evidence of a cryptid in Ness (witness Hugh Gray’s photo).

This photo made me think: is there any still photograph from Ness that is now considered evidence for Nessie by monster enthusiasts?
I personally discount the underwater photos of Rines: I didn’t accept the photos as depicting an animal even when I was a “believer” in Nessie.

Also our Kind Host’s words: is this a photo of ” a Nessie or one of the Loch Ness Monsters?” Is Loren suggesting “Nessie” is not the same kind of animal as “the Loch Ness Monster(s)” or is this just an uncharacteristically awkward phrasing?

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:57:14 +0000

My first thought—looks like a Calamari. But that’s just my first impression—quickly dissipated. Ultimately, it is ambiguous enough
to be whatever one wants it to be. Not an otter, though.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:15:56 +0000

how about his shoe? He did say he was using his flash to get down to the shore. I’ve accidentally taken pictures before when I just needed the flash.
Animal wise I’d have to say that is a cuttle fish (or something in the squid/octopus family).

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:34:48 +0000

I think it’s an Invisibility Helmet, which is why you can’t see the rest of the animal.

Or a chicken, from the account apparently dropped from an aircraft.

Now of course, as frequently happens, the account doesn’t sound like people making stuff up or getting hoaxed.

But we sure are going nowhere with the photographic evidence, unless it’s either an I. H. or Tyson’s comes forward to announce its new “Nessie Roaster.”