• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

I Saw And Photographed The Loch Ness Monster In 2006

CuriousIdent said:
I just want to highlight this for a second. In light of seeing the photo now presented elsewhere online, and reading this thread front to back (I dropped out after the first couple of pages last year) I'm actually kinda disgusted with the way this thread deteriorated.

That's the response of somebody who came to post a personal experience. It may not have felt that way to the posters who joined in with it, but to be brutally honest reading this front to back all I see is page after page of condescending posts of bullying.

Yes, this guy withheld the image. Yes he had a silly pseudonym. But to some degree a vague reflection of his ex-girlfriend is in that photo, and he made it very clear that this was a very personal experience which had disturbed him. It also involved an ex-partner he seemingly split from on bad terms.

Nothing he said in the start was disingenuous, and yet very quickly people piled in on him, badgered him, took the piss out of him. This is not a positive thread. It paints a number of posters here in a pretty bad light, ranging from being rudely condescending jerks to actively ridiculing the guy through other threads.

That's not cool, guys.

I know he too got quite irate. And slanging back is just as bad. But honestly, I don't feel that was without having been baited for it first.

There's some really antisocial behavior on here. I'm genuinely surprised by some of it.
Click to expand...

Disagree.
Readers of the thread, initially posted the expected welcomes and encouragement and then, as is usual, considered the limited evidence presented and offered possible natural explanations for the sighting.
Unfortunately the OP took this badly and the tone and language degenerated from there.
I personally welcome the objective, scientific analysis that this forum generates and have reconsidered my position on such matters as timeslips and ooparts as a result. If anyone is unwilling to countenance a possible debunking of an experience then maybe it would be better not to share it?
 
I would add, and I think my posts reflect this, I was completely straight with him, polite and eager to facilitate a way around the impasse the thread had reached, but when I disagreed with his judgment--having furnished my own judgment with caveats and disclaimers asserting my own lack of his expertise and disavowing the possibility of duplicitous intention on his part--he basically called me an idiot and subsequently accused me of having betrayed his confidence. This in spite of my also having called on others in my capacity as a moderator to be less condemnatory until we'd seen (or at least heard about) the goods, as it were.

I feel little sympathy towards people who display such behaviour and shall not be taking a stake or joining the queue.
 
Yithian said:
I would add, and I think my posts reflect this, I was completely straight with him, polite and eager to facilitate a way around the impasse the thread had reached, but when I disagreed with his judgment--having furnished my own judgment with caveats and disclaimers asserting my own lack of his expertise and disavowing the possibility of duplicitous intention on his part--he basically called me an idiot and subsequently accused me of having betrayed his confidence. This in spite of my also having called on others in my capacity as a moderator to be less condemnatory until we'd seen (or at least heard about) the goods, as it were.
Click to expand...


Oh, I would absolutely agree with you there, Yithian. And my comments certainly weren't directed at you. You gave him an avenue to review the image in private. The problem I feel is that this was not somebody who was particularly savvy with internet forums. And as such took what others would normally interpret as constructive feedback (and a little banter) very personally.

(That he confused what he had discussed with you with the email conversation with the Nessie blogger is a large part of what I base that assumption on)

I do feel though, that some posters chose to pile on to him when he started to lose his temper, and have fun at his expense. In my opinion that was unnecessary.
 
He shot down a lot of the valid questions early on. Yes there were some nasty posts which Yith dealt with but Justin gave back a fair particularly with the "drop dead" comment which might have resulted in a warning - but didn't.

I apologized for my log joke at the time.

I think a lot of us could have done things differently and that certainly includes Justin.
 
Did the picture of the LNM get posted? I've read a few posts but didn't see Nessie! :loveu:
 
Only just read this thread from the start. Have to say I thought it actually a very strange approach indeed by the OP. Why the secrecy about the photo, unless of course he was hoping to flog the copyright for a large sum! Didn't make sense to me at all. Surely the obvious approach would have been " I photographed something weird on Loch Ness - what do people think? Can't be the Monster can it? " But no he goes all coy. Sorry but to me it looked as though he was spoiling for a fight from day 1 .
 
And I'm still not convinced it wasn't a very large radio controlled submarine bobbing onto the surface! I've seen some 4 metres long and they do produce a wake when surfacing! :)
 
I basically agree with PeteS. Something seemed a bit 'off' about this thread and the OP's behavior early on. I admit I'd thought I'd caught a whiff of troll in the early going.

Save for a single post confirming that plesiosaurs were air-breathers, I stayed out of it.
 
thats actually one of the more blaffling pictures i have seen in a while, even considering the OPs acidic attitude
its obviously too big to be a swan, what is that thing?!
 
henry said:
blaffling = state of being amused and confused in equal amounts
Click to expand...

I thought it was a variant spelling of 'blahffling':

(Slang; attested from 1993; Composite juxtaposition of 'blah' and 'baffling') - Adj. Anomalous or confusing, yet sufficiently mundane or bland to motivate further interest, comment, or mention.

:evillaugh:
 
But seriously ...

For what it's worth ... I find the most interesting part of the photo isn't the object (which seems sufficiently dark and flat to insinuate fakery), but rather its wake. the slalom-like pattern suggests it's being generated by something that is repeatedly either:

- shifting or adjusting its overall directional orientation leftward / rightward (or port / starboard, if you prefer ...), or perhaps

- propelling itself / paddling primarily on one side, then shifting to the other side

... in a regular cyclical manner.

I've done some photo rummaging to check for representative wakes of swimmers, canoes, kayaks, snakes, birds, skiers, etc., and I can't locate any example of a laterally-alternating wake pattern quite like this.
 
Last edited:
EnolaGaia said:
I've done some photo rummaging to check for representative wakes of swimmers, canoes, kayaks, snakes, birds, skiers, etc., and I can't locate any example of a laterally-alternatiing wake pattern quite like this.
Click to expand...
I know you mentioned skiers, but how about slalom water-skiers? I'm particularly struck by the apparent absence of any straight-line wake left by the towing vessel in the photo below, whereas the skier's wake is easily visible.

Course-Sky-View.jpg
 
Krepostnoi said:
I know you mentioned skiers, but how about slalom water-skiers? I'm particularly struck by the apparent absence of any straight-line wake left by the towing vessel in the photo below, whereas the skier's wake is easily visible. ...
Click to expand...

That's one of the possibilities that occurred to me once I focused on the apparent side-to-side motion(s) the photo's wake suggests.

I wasn't able to convince myself the photo was a valid photo of a slalom skier on the loch, because:

- I couldn't discern any clear trace of a central wake (no matter how slight) amidst the side-to-side alternating waves

- The apparent heights of the 'cuts' (alternating left / right crests where a skier changes direction) seemed a bit modest for a slalom skier

- These possible 'cuts' showed no signs of spray, even in the frontmost example

- The side-to-side spreading of the alternating crests seemed low enough (the farther to the right you look) to indicate the object was moving pretty quickly

- Perhaps most importantly, if this really were a slalom skier being towed by a boat it would almost certainly mean the photo had been doctored to obscure or eliminate both the boat and the skier.

On the other hand ...

The photo wasn't taken from a relatively high elevation (compared to the water surface), so it may be that some key features are simply incapable of discrimination given the perspective.
 
The wake is also the source of two other features that bug me ...

If you look at the alternating 'crests' (taller / darker sub-waves), they are strangely uniform - similar enough to be the result of duplication in doctoring the photo.

I'm not claiming it's necessarily fake - I'm only questioning whether the uniformity seems reasonable for a slalom skier's wake (and / or a number of other possible wakes).

My best guess at a possible source would be something like a sprint canoe / war canoe carrying multiple paddlers who worked in a notably coordinated and regularized manner, all paddling on one side and then the other in tight synchronization.

Finally, I can't explain what appears to be a bit of wave / wake in front of the object (look closely to its lower left).
 
EnolaGaia said:
The wake is also the source of two other features that bug me ...

If you look at the alternating 'crests' (taller / darker sub-waves), they are strangely uniform - similar enough to be the result of duplication in doctoring the photo.

I'm not claiming it's necessarily fake - I'm only questioning whether the uniformity seems reasonable for a slalom skier's wake (and / or a number of other possible wakes).

My best guess at a possible source would be something like a sprint canoe / war canoe carrying multiple paddlers who worked in a notably coordinated and regularized manner, all paddling on one side and then the other in tight synchronization.

Finally, I can't explain what appears to be a bit of wave / wake in front of the object (look closely to its lower left).
Click to expand...
like it or not, lake monsters like the ness are paranormal beings, calling them unknow flesh and blood beings is ignoring all the anomalies about their existence and the weirder cases, same thing as bigfoot, loch ness is also a window area and the location of a amazing ce3 event from 1971
 
Last edited:
EnolaGaia said:
But seriously ...

For what it's worth ... I find the most interesting part of the photo isn't the object (which seems sufficiently dark and flat to insinuate fakery), but rather its wake. the slalom-like pattern suggests it's being generated by something that is repeatedly either:

- shifting or adjusting its overall directional orientation leftward / rightward (or port / starboard, if you prefer ...), or perhaps

- propelling itself / paddling primarily on one side, then shifting to the other side

... in a regular cyclical manner.

I've done some photo rummaging to check for representative wakes of swimmers, canoes, kayaks, snakes, birds, skiers, etc., and I can't locate any example of a laterally-alternatiing wake pattern quite like this.
Click to expand...

I can. I was at a local beauty spot overlooking the lake and noticed one duck chasing another. It was hard to see the actual birds in the flurry but the chase definitely veered from side to side leaving a serpentine wake as a result.
 
humanoidlord said:
like it or not, lake monsters like the ness are paranormal beings, calling them unknow flesh and blood beings is ignoring all the anomalies about their existence and the weirder cases, same thing as bigfoot, loch ness is also a window area and the location of a amazing ce3 event from 1976
Click to expand...

Proof?
 
I’ve been there a couple of times myself and spent an afternoon at Foyers just watching the water, mostly to see a bit of wave action and how boat wakes affect the loch’s surface.
 
humanoidlord said:
like it or not, lake monsters like the ness are paranormal beings, calling them unknow flesh and blood beings is ignoring all the anomalies about their existence and the weirder cases, same thing as bigfoot, loch ness is also a window area and the location of a amazing ce3 event from 1976
Click to expand...

I'd go with this, (although I'd like to hear more about this Loch Ness CE3 event).

On the one hand there are zero Nessie pictures (that I know off, and I have researched this) which aren't either inconclusive or which can't be quite easily debunked, but on the other there have occurred some sightings - including mass sightings - in which otherwise sane people claim to have seen something large, sentient and unknown swimming in the waters of that Loch.

It's the same deal with the North American Bigfoot: cartloads of honest witnesses and precious little, if any, secondary physical evidence for the corporeal existence of anything remotely like what they report.

Then one learns that UFO sightings take place in the same areas, and that even the phenomena - bigfeet with UFOs. for example - sometimes run concurrently!

Even in the Rendlesham forest case we learn that the whole area has an historical reputation for weird events: the Bealing Bells poltergeist case occurred nearby, red spook lights were recorded in the forest a long time before the famous UFO encounter (Victorian times even) and the place even has its own man-like ape myth!

It seems to me that there are certain anomalous hotspots in the world where strange stuff - any kind of strange stuff -can happen. My guess is something along the lines of thought-forms (`tulpas` as the Tibetans called them) being generated from the human mind - but aided by geomagnetic disturbances in certain localities.

Seismic activity seems to be an issue. (Indeed, there is seismic activity in Loch Ness!)

It needs a bit of work, but it's my theory, and I'm sticking to it!
 
EnolaGaia said:
- Perhaps most importantly, if this really were a slalom skier being towed by a boat it would almost certainly mean the photo had been doctored to obscure or eliminate both the boat and the skier.
Click to expand...
I admit that I was voluble in my defence of the OP, or at any rate in my wanting him to be allowed to tell his story in a way he was comfortable with. However, now that the actual photograph has emerged, I am struck by the similarity between the dark shape it portrays and silhouettes of waterfowl taking off/landing that Min and others have pointed out. So now I am, shall we say, more open to the idea that the photo has indeed been doctored - that a cormorant or whatever has been clumsily pasted in (hence the peculiar wave/wake in front of the apparent anomaly that you noted yourself). It might be that there was a water-skier on the loch at the time, which has been pasted over, but if we are considering doctored photos, there is no reason why the wake might not also have been added to the original scene.

This cut-and-paste scenario would also explain the apparent size of the thing: if that object was actually there in the loch, then it was enormous. It would also explain the absence of cuts or sprays in the wake, as our purported faker could simply choose a portion of the wake which had had more chance to settle.

(To set against that, though, I've looked again at my illustrative photo with fresher eyes, and can now make out a straight wake from the towing vessel: the white buoys in the slalom course threw me off last night when I was looking. As you say, there is no apparent straight wake in Justin's pic.)
 
Krepostnoi said:
(To set against that, though, I've looked again at my illustrative photo with fresher eyes, and can now make out a straight wake from the towing vessel: the white buoys in the slalom course threw me off last night when I was looking. As you say, there is no apparent straight wake in Justin's pic.)
Click to expand...

Jet ski, perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top