Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,199
- Reaction score
- 10,770
- Points
- 309
It’s water. But that’s not proof it’s a loch.Quite a stretch? .. as in a dog swimming in a loch is unlikely? ..
It’s water. But that’s not proof it’s a loch.Quite a stretch? .. as in a dog swimming in a loch is unlikely? ..
Good point.It’s water. But that’s not proof it’s a loch.
No, not at all. Having been owned by a Labrador retriever myself, that's not it. I mean you have to squint pretty hard, use your imagination, and ignore much of the information that actually is in the image in order to see a dog. That's why I likened it to the rodents on Mars we've all been shown in recent years on the nutjob sites. Silly. Just my opinion, of course. And no, I don't see a monster either. It's an ambiguous image. I might get around to hunting up the original story that accompanied it though. As someone up thread pointed out, the picture does not exist in a vacuum and I'm not one for calling people liars just because I don't like their stories.Quite a stretch? .. as in a dog swimming in a loch is unlikely? ..
Thanks. I thought I'd seen it somewhere in here but didn't look.helpfully linked in opening post
Gray claimed he took the photo in the vicinity of the River Foyers' mouth. The ripple patterns in the water and the dark shadows / reflections apparent toward the upper right of the photo have always made me think the picture makes more sense as a shot of the river rather than the loch.It’s water. But that’s not proof it’s a loch.
As in - it doesn't look like a dog unless you have a powerful imagination. Well, actually I do have a powerful imagination and it still doesn't look like a dog.Quite a stretch? .. as in a dog swimming in a loch is unlikely? ..
To me it strongly looks like a dog's face holding a branch in its mouth and paddling towards the photographer but the different and extra details provided so far in this thread about the image are compelling. Truth be told, I'd love it if it was proven not to be a dog's face.As in - it doesn't look like a dog unless you have a powerful imagination. Well, actually I do have a powerful imagination and it still doesn't look like a dog.
I think that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact, I think it was long gone over the horizon twenty years ago, when digital cameras became readily available consumer items. Of course manipulated photos have been around almost as long as photos have. It's just so much easier to do now.These days, I wonder if a picture or video EVER could be solid evidence.
Yet people keep insisting it's "proof" :bf:I think that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact, I think it was long gone over the horizon twenty years ago, when digital cameras became readily available consumer items. Of course manipulated photos have been around almost as long as photos have. It's just so much easier to do now.
I revisited Glasgow Boy's blog this morning and it really does smack of desperation!Nevertheless, the venerable Glasgow Boy - surely Britain's last die hard Nessie believer - has put up a spirited and elaborate defence of the picture as showing something else entirely and the dog image as being a case of paredolia. (Strap yourself in for a long and detailed read).
http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2011/06/hugh-gray-photograph-revisited_26.html
youre right, theres the outside chance its a labradorWe cannot say with 100% certainty that it is a golden retriever with a stick in its mouth, but ...
thats not a good blog IMOI revisited Glasgow Boy's blog this morning and it really does smack of desperation!
And the thunderbird has Roswell debris in its talonsIf I squint long enough I can see that it is clearly The Face On Mars, sitting atop The Thunderbird Photo.
Actually I believe that's from the Berwyn Mountains crash, Roswell debris has a gloss rather than matt finish.And the thunderbird has Roswell debris in its talons![]()
I still can't unsee the dog's head, but tetzoo does make quite a compelling case for the swan - notably the detail around the "ankle".I was once rather taken by the dog & stick but not so much anymore. I'm leaning toward swan. http://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/3/7/boo...-ronald-binnss-the-loch-ness-mystery-reloaded
P.S. Naish is justifiably critical of Roland's stuff. I notice that because not many people blog about this subject, Roland has cornered the search results, unfortunately. People check the internet more than actually well-written books on topics.
The key sentence in the analysis for me is "There’s a popular idea among cryptozoologists that one should ignore personality traits and biography and just pay attention to the monster sighting. Alas, no; this is wrong. Those things are absolutely relevant."I was once rather taken by the dog & stick but not so much anymore. I'm leaning toward swan. http://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/3/7/boo...-ronald-binnss-the-loch-ness-mystery-reloaded
P.S. Naish is justifiably critical of Roland's stuff. I notice that because not many people blog about this subject, Roland has cornered the search results, unfortunately. People check the internet more than actually well-written books on topics.