Comments on: Breaking News: New Photo of Loch Ness Monster

By: wendigo

wendigo — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:06:38 +0000

nice

By: wuffing

wuffing — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:46:02 +0000

Medgerto wrote “The order of the colors on the water do not look right to be a reflection of the house.”

The white patches are most likely separate reflections of the sun in the three windows, bouncing off the water surface, not reflections of the house.

The sun moves across the sky at 1° every 4 minutes but is only ½° in diameter, so any alignment of observer, two mirrors and sun will only last for 2 minutes between the sun’s right limb entering alignment and the left limb leaving it.

In the present case the second mirror – the loch surface – is rippled so the actual time of alignment could be extended slightly both before and after the real alignment.

The 5 photographs were all taken within a period of 2 minutes.

By: medgerto

medgerto — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:22:32 +0000

It’s not a reflection. The order of the colors on the water do not look right to be a reflection of the house. Also, it is highly unlikely that only the house would be reflected in the water and none of the surrounding vegetation.

Search Google images for houses reflected in water and you will see what I mean.

It’s not a reflection….next.

By: wbp

wbp — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:06:29 +0000

I’m a little skeptical of the reflection-of-the-buildings-onshore hypothesis. The bank of trees abutting the shore look way too tall to allow the image of the building(s) to reflect on the water surface, especially that close to shore (and note that there’s no reflection of the trees themselves). Granted, the building’s on a small slpoe, but that slope doesn’t look tall enough to alow the image to project onto the water.
It’s also a little unclear as to why, if it is a reflection of the building, the three-humps in the water to not reflect a configuation of the single structure onshore.
Nessie? Maybe not. But I’m not sold on the reflection idea.

By: whiteriverfisherman

whiteriverfisherman — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:12:16 +0000

I believe korollocke pegged this one. I also think it is a reflection of the buildings on the shore line.

By: jtmkryptos

jtmkryptos — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:04:01 +0000

just going to say the obvious… there is an albino gene in every species, not to say this is real or hoaxed, just saying, the white color means nothing.

By: Tacos_with_Chili

Tacos_with_Chili — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:17:14 +0000

Looks to me that with the quality of this picture, you can’t tell if it has wakes or ripples. As in, there might be some waves or ripples on this photo. Just that it’s hard to tell from it’s quality. I look at the water and the quality looks weird (a bit messed up). Also it could be floating therefore no wake/ripples at the time of the photo shoot. I’m saying that there might be ripples/wakes but when the photographer shot the picture, he shot it when the “thing” wasn’t moving. Therefore no ripple/wake. It probably moved after the photo shot.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:34:41 +0000

If it was a reflection, why would it disappear…it would be just a wavering image upon the water and probably not going away. As for the rock theory–the same…rocks don’t tend to move.

As for what it IS, didn’t the guy say he took other pictures? Yes, he said he took “various shots” of it. So where are the other pics and what can we tell from the whole? As to the picture–the dark lines atop the white could be the back of a creature…the white underneath could be partially exposed underside with froth…or it could be a wash of waves–bodies of water like Loch Ness can (personally I do not believe for a second that this accounts for all of the wakes in Loch NEss) cause a back wash of waves colliding, creating things looking like that.

What can help decide is what other pictures the guy got and what his other information is. He said he saw “four hump-like features” and that it “stayed there as long as it did.” What we need to know is what he observed those humps doing while it was there…moving, stock still, shifting, what? And how long are we talking? If he took several shots, at least it was visible a few seconds, so he should have more information about whether it was stationary in the water or moving left or right, or toward the camera or away from it.

Loch Ness does go deep after a few feet out into the loch, so it’s not inconceivable that a creature could surface near the shore.

It’s a good photo…I’m just not sure it’s Nessie–not ruling it out, but there’s a lot of other questions that need answering before we can throw it into the realm of my favorite cryptid.

That’s another problem with Ness–it’s long and narrow, but standing on one shore, you can easily have a mile across the loch, and if you see something either out in the middle or near the opposite shore, it can be a devilishly hard time getting the “money shot.”

Still, I haven’t given up on Nessie yet:) Let’s see what other details we can squeeze out of this picture, others and the photographer…oh, and don’t rule out a hoax yet either…

By: Erik Howell

Erik Howell — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:08:54 +0000

The elephant’s foot umbrella stand in the room is that there’s no evidence of water disturbance whatsoever. At that angle of capture, perspective, and that degree of detail…regardless of the marshmallow appearance…those humps are over eight feet above the surface (higher than any Nessie purported humps of which I’m aware). Where’s the wake that even the most graceful of undulating creatures of that size couldn’t help but create. Even if the object in question were animate and merely struggling to remain stationary (a highly implausible scenario), it being that big, there would still be ripples emanating from it.

By: sonofthedestroyer

sonofthedestroyer — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:17:42 +0000

This is frustrating.
There is something clearly in the water. Rocks? Man made object? Animal? Who knows?
But it certainly is not something on shore reflecting onto the water.
Photography is not easy.
I have a fuji s5600 bridge camera. Taken alot of beautiful photos with it. You will be surprised however, at how hard it is to take photos of wildlife with it. Wildlife in the wild at a distance, using the environment to hide from you.
From my experience, only with professional DSLR cameras can you reliably take clear photos of wildlife at a split seconds notice. But these are extremely bulky and expensive equipment to carry around. Majority of people cant carry them around.
Bridge cameras, compact cameras, phone cameras etc are hit or miss.
So it is always a lottery
I am telling you from experience.
With cryptozoology the problem is complicated further.
Get a blurry photo or video and people say you deliberately present a blurred photo so people cant see the hoax or misidentified animal. I.e You are accused of trying to con the world.
Get a crystal sharp photo/video and you are accused of using computer graphic software to create a hoax.