Comments on: “Ogopogo” Photos: Analytic Overlay

By: skep-tik

skep-tik — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:03:04 +0000

Google images : kite boarding

By: skep-tik

skep-tik — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:52:12 +0000

Have any of you considered a “kite surfer” that headed out onto the lake for a great ride until the wind died, got helped out by a passing boater rather than swimming a great distance, and flew his kite from the boat? They aren’t that easy to pack up in the middle of the lake….

By: ARO

ARO — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:41:32 +0000

To me the boat looks like a toy and the monster looks photoshopped lol.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:35:22 +0000

I can’t really ascribe the object’s shape/color to any reasonable animal, even a hypothetical long-necked mammal or reptile. I think this is goign to prove to be a manmade object (kite, kiteskier, something).

By: Bigfootfinder

Bigfootfinder — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:32:13 +0000

Their is something is the water other then the boat and on the pic on the right it is closer to the boat.

By: cliff

cliff — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:35:36 +0000

Another thing to consider is that maybe the kite isn’t nearer to the water surface on the left photo, but is actually higher, it’s really hard to tell from the photo. But another way to look at this is just consider that on the left the kite is let out farther, and the photo on the right depicts the kite being pulled in and maybe the wind changed a bit?? There are many different ways that you can look at this. The Ogopogo theory assumes that both “objects”, left and right, are in the water. Same with the windsurfer theory. But kite/windsock throws the Z-axis displacement into the equation and that’s something that can’t be accurately determined by looking at these 2D photos.

Richard888 – And for the record, I’m not trying to “cook” any evidence so I can call case closed either, I’m just looking at the options with an open mind, considering all the possibilities. I looked at the photo with a naked eye and saw that the displacements were approximately equal. I realize that drawing it out doesn’t result in a perfect square, but do you seriously think that overlayed photos taken seconds apart by a human will be perfect? I considered the room for error in overlay initially and that’s why I said “approximate”. Looking at the photo with the naked eye does suggest some relationship between object and boat exists, for me anyway…

By: cliff

cliff — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:27:54 +0000

Ok, I finally had time to load this photo into CAD as an image and do some scaling to bring it up to size. Some assumptions had to be made about the size of the boat to scale the drawing in CAD, so I’m going off an assumption that the boat is 22′ long. That being said, I struck a line along the side of the boat, calculated a scaling factor, and scaled the entire photo, scaling everything proportionally. I’m working with only x-y coordinates (2D) here since this is a photo.

I’m also assuming that the starting point is the left hand side and both objects move from left to right.

Going forward it may help to print the photo and draw lines to label them to understand where I’m going with this.

The straight line distance between the boat and the object on the left is 145′. The straight line distance between boat and object on the right is 135′. A 10.0′ difference. (Draw a line from the object on the left to the boat on the left, then repeat for right side, then label with distances).

The straight line distance between the object on the left and the object on the right is 122′. The straight line distance between the boat on the left and the boat on the right is 141′. A 19.0′ difference. (Draw a straight line from object on left to object on right, then repeat for boats, then label the distances).

So, some might call me crazy for saying that the x-y displacements are approximately equal, but I’m also considering the fact that I’m dealing with a photo overlay, which may not be quite perfect for a number of reasons. Also, I can’t account for the Z axis in a 2D photo, but when you consider the Z axis the kite theory certainly starts to look appealing. The displacement of the boat can be accounted for with x-y coordinates, since the surface of the water is level, correct? But if the object is a kite, then one must consider the displacement along the Z-axis.

If the photo on the left depicts a kite on or near the surface of the water, and the photo on the right depicts a kite in flight, and the length of the string attached to the kite remains the same, then one would expect that the straight line distance between the boat/object on the right to be shorter than the distance between boat/object on the left as the kite gains altitude. Pretty simple geometry. And again, the distances between boat object were: right = 135′ < left = 145′ (and this makes sense for a kite gaining altitude being pulled behind a boat, with the length of the string remaining constant).

And it could still be a windsurfer too. We are dealing with overlayed photos here, so I wouldn’t expect the measurements to be perfect. I do recall saying that the displacements were “approximately equal”, and we’re only dealing with 10-20′ differences which could be a result of error in the overlay.

I’m no expert on overlaying photos, but I do overlay aerial maps quite a bit in my profession, and we see some pretty big discrepencies in that sometimes. Descrepencies in these photos could easily be caused by the photographer slightly changing position during the photos, or simply adjusting the zoom a bit, or both. You can still overlay the photos by finding a common point, but it will cause some error and things tend to get a bit out of proportion. So that has to be considered here, and the reason why every measurement should be seen as APPROXIMATE.

And as far as velocity vectors, it’s kinda tough to calculate velocity without knowing the time difference between the 2 photos. So I’m not even going to get into that. Looking at this from a 2D perspective in CAD tells me enough.

Anyway, after getting a chance to pull this into CAD I’m leaning more toward kite, but windsurfer is still likely as well, and that has alot to do with the photos of the boards used, the appearance of the object on the right and similarity to said boards, and the fact that some error is to be expected in the distances I got from the overlay, but I just don’t know how much.

By: proriter

proriter — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:02:47 +0000

Yes, you’re right. It’s MUCH more reasonable to conclude that this is a bright purple leaping sea serpent than it is merely a windsurfer.

By: rodbotic

rodbotic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:29:10 +0000

towing a kite makes perfect sense.

I had to look hard at the photo, cliff’s is right if he said the word kite it would have mode more sense.
I read his comment and thought someone on a tube and thought where is the wake? and what about depth? the Z component to his XY his comment didn’t make sense without thinking about a kite.

but if it’s a Kite we can assume the same Z for both shots.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:57:14 +0000

What!? The distance between the so called “first” picture here(actually the 3rd posted on this site! -Where’s the second from the other post?)
is much further from the boat than the second…There is deception afoot here as the second piture is more zoomed in as evidenced by the wave size..It’s Not because the boat is closer! WAKE UP! AND if anyone has even a small understanding of depth perception, then the sailboard theory would make the person doing it about 30 feet tall! Wow, I guess we’ve got proof of giant sailboarding humans now!
I’m amazed by this whole Ogopogo flap on this site, everyone seems overly willing to see anything BUT what the witness says he saw. Amazing lack of trust in the fellow man (what a shame).
I went to a site full of sailboarding photo’s and saw nothing like the 3 that have shown up here, and on the previous post.
I don’t get it; to me there is way less reason to believe the popular theory’s than to leave it in the mystery category.
An overt willingness to bend over backward multiple times to discount something shows less in the way of “critical thinking” than it does of anything resembling courage to forge ahead in possible new discovery. This all reminds me of the completely discredited “Bell Theory” etc. cynicism disguised as objectivity lives! (what a shame)