The Loch Ness Monster

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
14,364
Likes
17,337
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
What the fuck phone is he using.... a Super8?
My understanding is that it's a phone-captured video from the computer screen on which he was watching a streamed feed from a Loch Ness webcam.

The captured result is so murky I can't really tell what the object might be.

There appears to be a haze or mist out on the water, but for all I know that's an artifact of capturing the image off a computer screen.

I'm not sure that the captured video is replayed at actual speed. There are multiple places where the object's image and position 'jerk' as if there were missing frames. Naturally, this might be explained by glitches in the streaming feed, the network connection, etc.

Doesn't anyone archive this webcam feed? Might there be a 'first generation' digital file out there somewhere?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
14,364
Likes
17,337
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Anyone notice what looks like a flashing light at 02:23? Might suggest a boat.
The bright transient bit seems to be unusually 'pure white' and pixellated around its edges. My impression was a localized pixel loss in the image processing / streaming / phone capture chain rather than something the webcam 'saw' in the scene.
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
985
Likes
1,012
Points
134
Location
NYS, USA

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,714
Likes
2,028
Points
169
Conger eels are marine fish and would die swiftly in fresh water. There may be very large fresh water eels, sturgeon or wels catfish.
 

Bigphoot2

Not sprouts! I hate sprouts.
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
6,844
Likes
17,917
Points
294
Probably sign it up for its own reality TV show.

What happens if someone catches the Loch Ness Monster?
  • 6 hours ago


Image copyrightSCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Image captionNessie is often described as resembling a plesiosaur, an extinct prehistoric animal
A Scottish government-funded body has a plan in place if the Loch Ness Monster should ever be found.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) prepared the "partly serious, partly fun" code of practice in 2001 amid a period of intense interest in Nessie.

This year's interest has been piqued by scientists gathering DNA from the loch, and Scotland's first minister saying she believes there is a monster.

SNH said it would "dust off" the plan if Nessie was discovered.

The code of practice was drawn up to offer protection to new species found in the loch, including a monster.

It stipulates that a DNA sample should be taken from any new creature, and then it should be released back into the loch.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionThis photograph of Nessie was taken in 1934 but was later exposed as a hoax
The story of the monster can be traced back 1,500 years when Irish missionary St Columba is said to have encountered a beast in the River Ness in 565AD.

Later, in the 1930s, The Inverness Courier reported the first modern sighting of Nessie.

The creature's appearance has been described as resembling a plesiosaur, a creature that died out with the dinosaurs.

etc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44519189
 

CuriousIdent

Not yet SO old Great Old One
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,456
Likes
1,130
Points
184
Location
Warwickshire, England.

Mikefule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
424
Likes
1,193
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Which coincides with the tourist season.
The contingency plan was drawn up in 2001, 17 years ago.

Yes, it's a bit of fun, but when there are people who genuinely believe that there is an unknown large species in the loch, maybe it's wise for the authorities not to be exposed to criticism for having no contingency plan. As long as preparing the plan cost no more than a bit of time, with no money wasted on exotic research trips and expert reports, I've no problem with that.

I suspect that very few people who think seriously about it expect there to be plesiosaurs in the loch. However, it would not be surprising to find a previously unknown species of eel or sturgeon — or similar — or a community of larger than usual examples of a well known species. Some species of fish that have no natural predators, being supported by the water around them, can simply keep growing as long as their food supply is adequate.

That said, I'm sure that most if not all supposed sightings can be explained by a combination of misidentification, wishful thinking, and deliberate hoax.

Do I believe in "the monster"? No. Do I at least accept the possibility of a small population of large fish or eels that are sometimes mistaken for the monster? Yes. And if there is a previously unknown species, or subspecies, in the loch, it deserves to have some form of protection in place before it is discovered.
 

CuriousIdent

Not yet SO old Great Old One
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,456
Likes
1,130
Points
184
Location
Warwickshire, England.
I suspect this is less of a 'planning for the discover of Nessie' than it is 'have a plan for preserving any new form of life discovered in the loch'.

Because there's always the chance that as people spend decades searching for Nessie they actually find some other kind of rare species.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
27,345
Likes
29,127
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
An older article--a travel journal piece--but quite fun:

Loch Ness Memoir
By Tom Bissell
PUBLISHED: March 13, 2007
[August 2006]

Char and I are waiting for Mandy out in front of the Loch Ness 2000 Exhibition Centre, which should not be confused with the Official Loch Ness 2003 Monster Exhibition Centre, also known as “the ORIGINAL the Loch Ness MONSTER Visitors Centre,” the unyielding grammar of which I cannot help but admire. All that separates the two centres is a hundred yards of highway A82, with the added diversions of a hairpin turn (the site of numerous yearly accidents), the Loch Ness Monster Booking Office (a mostly gutted office that has the look of a broken-up telemarketing racket), a Bank of Scotland (the cash machine of which is broken), and a store called Bits & Pieces (which sells large, Damoclean swords that, according to the sign on the window, can go “abroad, on a plane, AS LONG AS YOU DECLARE IT AT THE AIRPORT”).

Article Continues:
https://www.vqronline.org/web-dispatch/loch-ness-memoir
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
26,295
Likes
33,333
Points
284
An older article--a travel journal piece--but quite fun:

Loch Ness Memoir
By Tom Bissell
PUBLISHED: March 13, 2007
[August 2006]

Char and I are waiting for Mandy out in front of the Loch Ness 2000 Exhibition Centre, which should not be confused with the Official Loch Ness 2003 Monster Exhibition Centre, also known as “the ORIGINAL the Loch Ness MONSTER Visitors Centre,” the unyielding grammar of which I cannot help but admire. All that separates the two centres is a hundred yards of highway A82, with the added diversions of a hairpin turn (the site of numerous yearly accidents), the Loch Ness Monster Booking Office (a mostly gutted office that has the look of a broken-up telemarketing racket), a Bank of Scotland (the cash machine of which is broken), and a store called Bits & Pieces (which sells large, Damoclean swords that, according to the sign on the window, can go “abroad, on a plane, AS LONG AS YOU DECLARE IT AT THE AIRPORT”).

Article Continues:
https://www.vqronline.org/web-dispatch/loch-ness-memoir
Sounds a bit like Great Yarmouth.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
992
Likes
1,246
Points
134
This just in today:

Amateur photographer claims to have taken one of the most convincing photos of the Loch Ness Monster ever



The 58-year-old photographer said he was left stunned when he realised his photograph may be one of the only [sic] pieces of evidence proving the existence of the creature.

The whisky warehouse worker said he had been driving around the Highlands in search of red deer, also taking photos of the calm waters of the Loch Ness.

But it wasn't until the father of four got back home to Nigg in Invergordon that he looked through his photos - and realised what he might have been looking at through the camera lens.

The photograph taken by Bremner appears to show a long silver creature, at least two metres long, swimming away from the lens with its head bobbing and tail flapping.

Coming up for air, the slippery creature glistens in the sunlight, with its powerful stroke causing ripples in the calm water.

The photograph was taken close to the banks of the loch on Saturday afternoon midway between the villages of Dores and Inverfarigaig.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17905...vincing-photos-of-the-loch-ness-monster-ever/

a) That looks an awful lot like an eel. Two metres really don't make a monster...
b) Am I one of the few people left who know that "one of the only" doesn't make any sense?

 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,633
Likes
7,520
Points
294
This just in today:



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17905...vincing-photos-of-the-loch-ness-monster-ever/

a) That looks an awful lot like an eel. Two metres really don't make a monster...
b) Am I one of the few people left who know that "one of the only" doesn't make any sense?
We’ve discussed this photo before. The article is dated September 2016, updated February 2017.
At the time I said it looks like 3 seals or more outlandishly one worried seal being pursued by a giant eel.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
992
Likes
1,246
Points
134
We’ve discussed this photo before. The article is dated September 2016, updated February 2017.
At the time I said it looks like 3 seals or more outlandishly one worried seal being pursued by a giant eel.
Eek! I guess i didn't check the date - it popped up on my news somehow...
 

Mikefule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
424
Likes
1,193
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2018/08/tricks-of-sceptics.html

Dodgey arguments made by sceptics. Please note this is not an endorsment of their being anything living in Loch Ness full time other than some really big fish.
I'm sceptical about there being a surviving colony of plesiosaurs, or similar, in Loch Ness, and consider it possible that there is a population of large somethings in there: eels, catfish. They may be large specimens of known species, or specimens of a large previously unrecorded species. I don't consider it likely, but I consider it possible. I think of myself as a sceptic in the proper sense of wanting to challenge and test the arguments and evidence rather than wanting to prove one outcome or the other.

So, with my cards on the table and no axe to grind for or against "Nessie", I'll say that the article uses almost all of the techniques that it ascribes to the unnamed and unspecified sceptics.

Basically, it says, "The sort of idiots who disagree with me always make wild generalisations, are selective when it suits them, and use a scornful tone to add force to what they are saying," which is of course exactly what the article is doing. It's a lousy piece of writing on potentially a very interesting subject — whether the subject is the putative monster, or the way that people react to the possibility or otherwise of there being a monster.
 
Last edited:

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,947
Likes
1,366
Points
169
I consider myself a sceptic, but often find the arguments offered to be as shaky as the counter-view. This was particularly brought home to me in the discussion on the PG Film thread*. So while I found the article whingy and with the same lack of self awareness noted above, I do appreciate Lordmongrove's point in posting it.

*Just to add, not the comments on the PG thread made by posters here, but in some of the other discussions elsewhere which we cited in it.
 

Mikefule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
424
Likes
1,193
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
I consider myself a sceptic, but often find the arguments offered to be as shaky as the counter-view. This was particularly brought home to me in the discussion on the PG Film thread*. So while I found the article whingy and with the same lack of self awareness noted above, I do appreciate Lordmongrove's point in posting it.

*Just to add, not the comments on the PG thread made by posters here, but in some of the other discussions elsewhere which we cited in it.
I agree that Lordmongrove had a good point in posting it, it was relevant and, if not enlightening, at least entertaining.

On the wider point, I also agree. A true sceptic assumes that nothing is proven until they have considered all of the evidence that is available to them and weighed it objectively. Once they have done so, they may reach:
  • A final conclusion. I feel no need to keep abreast of new developments in flat Earth theory or chemtrails, for example.
  • A provisional position. I think a colony of some large species of fish in Loch Ness is possible but unlikely. I will follow new developments with interest.
  • A tentative set of hypotheses. I think ABCs are likely to be a combination of hoaxes, misidentifications, and actual sightings of escaped or released pets or circus/zoo animals, rather than an unrecorded native species — and are definitely not interdimensional beings. I will follow new cases and evidence with interest.

A different type of sceptic seems to have an emotional investment in believing something to be untrue. They then set out to prove their point. This is fair enough — maybe even commendable — in the case of debunking fraudulent mediums, but it is questionable in something harmless like the Loch Ness phenomenon. Fraudulent mediums prey on the vulnerable and do harm. Belief in the Loch Ness monster is harmless.

In something like flat Earth theory, most of us would consider it to be "case closed" and would regard it as futile to argue with the believers. In cases such as the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, poltergeists, then there is evidence to consider and debate, and both sides may benefit from honest discussion.

Whenever the opponent of a theory resorts to ad hominem attacks, or supports definite conclusions with vague generalisations, or sets up Aunt Sallies to knock down, or relies on big words and a scornful tone, they have stopped being a sceptic and become something rather unpleasant: an evangelist for their own particular worldview, more interested in hurting their opponents than in establishing the truth.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,990
Likes
2,776
Points
154
I have been looking into plesiosaurs briefly when I discovered this unusual info in Wikipedia:

A real plesiosaur specimen found in 1987 eventually proved that plesiosaurs gave birth to live young:[114] This fossil of a pregnant Polycotylus latippinus shows that these animals gave birth to a single large juvenile and probably invested parental care in their offspring, similar to modern whales. The young was 1.5 metres (five feet) long and thus large compared to its mother of five metres (sixteen feet) length, indicating a K-strategy in reproduction.[115] Little is known about growth rates or a possible sexual dimorphism.

Cop that. A reptile that births live young. Color me surprised. :omg:

[114] O'Keefe, F.R.; Chiappe, L.M. (2011). "Viviparity and K-Selected Life History in a Mesozoic Marine Plesiosaur (Reptilia, Sauropterygia)". Science. 333 (6044): 870–873. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..870O. doi:10.1126/science.1205689

[115] Welsh, Jennifer (11 August 2011). "Pregnant Fossil Suggests Ancient 'Sea Monsters' Birthed Live Young". LiveScience. Retrieved 21 May 2012
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,947
Likes
1,366
Points
169
I have been looking into plesiosaurs briefly when I discovered this unusual info in Wikipedia:

A real plesiosaur specimen found in 1987 eventually proved that plesiosaurs gave birth to live young:[114] This fossil of a pregnant Polycotylus latippinus shows that these animals gave birth to a single large juvenile and probably invested parental care in their offspring, similar to modern whales. The young was 1.5 metres (five feet) long and thus large compared to its mother of five metres (sixteen feet) length, indicating a K-strategy in reproduction.[115] Little is known about growth rates or a possible sexual dimorphism.

Cop that. A reptile that births live young. Color me surprised. :omg:

[114] O'Keefe, F.R.; Chiappe, L.M. (2011). "Viviparity and K-Selected Life History in a Mesozoic Marine Plesiosaur (Reptilia, Sauropterygia)". Science. 333 (6044): 870–873. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..870O. doi:10.1126/science.1205689

[115] Welsh, Jennifer (11 August 2011). "Pregnant Fossil Suggests Ancient 'Sea Monsters' Birthed Live Young". LiveScience. Retrieved 21 May 2012
It's not very unusual, lots of modern reptiles do this too including our own adder. Just as some mammals lay eggs.
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
985
Likes
1,012
Points
134
Location
NYS, USA
I not aware of many - any modern marine reptiles that give live birth. Although as pointed out by oldrover quite a few terrestrial snakes give live birth. Examples being all boa's (including the related Anaconda)as well as a handful of lizards. However all members of the long extinct family of ichthyosaurs gave live birth at sea.

The below link provides details on the earliest known marine reptile to give live birth.
https://www.livescience.com/43344-ichthyosaur-fossil-live-birth-found.html
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
985
Likes
1,012
Points
134
Location
NYS, USA
A different type of sceptic seems to have an emotional investment in believing something to be untrue. They then set out to prove their point. This is fair enough — maybe even commendable — in the case of debunking fraudulent mediums, but it is questionable in something harmless like the Loch Ness phenomenon. Fraudulent mediums prey on the vulnerable and do harm. Belief in the Loch Ness monster is harmless.
In other words the optioned skeptic. Really a misnomer when you think about it (contradiction of terms).
 
Top