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

The Loch Ness Monster

If this material was so important...why did they not collect it themselves?
 
Kondoru said:
If this material was so important...why did they not collect it themselves?
Click to expand...
Shipping companies regularly collect items to be shipped from the sender's location. This would not be unusual. Losing the items, even temporarily, is unusual. In the US, to arrange for the shipper to pick up would not be considered uncaring or sloppy.
 
Glasgow is a days drive from Didcot.

A nuisance, but not if it was irreplaceable.
 
It does feel like a very high proportion of film or photographic evidence of anomalous stuff either goes missing or allegedly gets mutilated / destroyed in some way.

Loch Ness Monster footage is one example but in the field of ufology you also have stuff like the Great Falls and Newhouse films (supposedly tampered with); the Drury film from Papua (disappeared); the Balwyn photograph (allegedly stolen), and any number of mislaid negatives right up to and including the Calvine photo. Not to mention the 1950s gun camera footage held by the MoD as late as the 1970s.

I wonder if the rate of attrition is similar for your average piece of archive film, and here we're just noticing it more due to the subject?
 
I still think the Jonathan Bright photo of something in Loch Ness back in 2013 is quite a powerful image. And the "Loch Ness Monster" site ran an article on it, wherein the great Roland Watson feels the photo image 'is not a wave', and after zooming in on it, it seems like a 'water horse' of some type:

1669036459953.png


https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/search?q=jonathan+bright

The article is quite interesting, as is this photo showing what appears to be ridged brows, ears, two staring eyes, snout, two nostrils, large mouth, and a ridge at the back of the head going down the neck. Very strange.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
I still think the Jonathan Bright photo of something in Loch Ness back in 2013 is quite a powerful image. And the "Loch Ness Monster" site ran an article on it, wherein the great Roland Watson feels the photo image 'is not a wave', and after zooming in on it, it seems like a 'water horse' of some type:

View attachment 60948

https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/search?q=jonathan+bright

The article is quite interesting, as is this photo showing what appears to be ridged brows, ears, two staring eyes, snout, two nostrils, large mouth, and a ridge at the back of the head going down the neck. Very strange.
Click to expand...
It does look like a physical object but to me it looks like debris of some kind. The head looks like an upturned basket (The dark lines) with weed round them and I see what look like two lines of net (two sets pf parallel lines intersecting at 90 degrees) trailing back to the left of the head.

The site feels this is unlikely as it wasn't seen and avoided by the boat, but could the wake have kicked up something that was under the surface?

Isn't there meant to be a discarded prop from a film that's been discarded in the loch as well? If that gets churned up to the surface every once in a while it'll confuse things.

Of course only my opinion, I'd love there to be something in Ness but I think, in Scotland, Loch Morar would be a better site to find proof.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
I still think the Jonathan Bright photo of something in Loch Ness back in 2013 is quite a powerful image. And the "Loch Ness Monster" site ran an article on it, wherein the great Roland Watson feels the photo image 'is not a wave', and after zooming in on it, it seems like a 'water horse' of some type:

View attachment 60948

https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/search?q=jonathan+bright

The article is quite interesting, as is this photo showing what appears to be ridged brows, ears, two staring eyes, snout, two nostrils, large mouth, and a ridge at the back of the head going down the neck. Very strange.
Click to expand...
Roland sees Nessie in a bowl of porridge. Sorry, not a fan.
But it's the 21st century and this is all we get?
 
Also from Roland Watson's excellent website, is a photo taken by Frank Searle in 1972:

Searle.jpeg


Searle took several photos, and if you copy this image and zoom in on the 'head' part, the interesting thing is that it appears to be almost exactly the same object that Jonathan Bright took a photo of, the ridged eye sockets, the snout, the nostrils.
Very strange.

Frank Searle's photos:

https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co...er-seen.html#comment-form_6130183216104289204
 
It just looks like a wave to me. You can even see the rest of the boat wake in the full photo.

edit -referring to the Bright photo.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
Also from Roland Watson's excellent website, is a photo taken by Frank Searle in 1972:

View attachment 60959

Searle took several photos, and if you copy this image and zoom in on the 'head' part, the interesting thing is that it appears to be almost exactly the same object that Jonathan Bright took a photo of, the ridged eye sockets, the snout, the nostrils.
Very strange.

Frank Searle's photos:

https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co...er-seen.html#comment-form_6130183216104289204
Click to expand...
Erm comparing a photo to one of Searle's to bolster legitimacy is not helping your case...
 
I was out for a drink with Jonathan and Crypozoologist Charles Paxton before the photo was released to the public. Its in the group of Oh I didn't see it at the time. It was also shot in infrared.

And yes I agree Roland is a bit too inclined to see Nessie everywhere, but give him his due, he puts the hours in and is a very frequent visitor to the Loch.
 
Last edited:
Nessie Review of 2022:

"The year 2022 has come and gone, so let's go straight into the eyewitness reports for the last twelve months. As ever a visit to Gary Campbell's Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register is required to see what he has logged. When you go to his 2022 page, we find six claimed sightings ranging from March to October."

Read on...

http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2023/01/nessie-review-of-2022.html
 
Another in-depth article from the same site:

"Today, the debate about the Loch Ness Monster is to be found scattered across various websites and forums, but particularly on the various discussion groups set up on Facebook over recent years. Gone are the days when books from recognised experts or occasional updates from newsletters plus some headlines on TV or newspapers shaped the debate."

Read on...

http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-believing-sceptic.html
 
I read the linked article. Not to say that it says nothing of merit at all, but...

A sceptic is not someone who doesn't believe in something. A sceptic is someone who doesn't take the truth of something for granted, but makes honest attempts to find whether or not it is true. Any outcome (true, probably true, probably untrue, untrue) is equally acceptable to the true sceptic, once the evidence and arguments have been tested as well as reasonably possible.

That aside, the article presents a classic case of what I personally think of as the Von Däniken technique, although many writers whose books I read in the 1970s used it to support their purported belief in their phenomenon of choice.

This colour denotes direct quotations from the article.

Step 1: point to the huge amount of potential evidence:
There are over 1000 eyewitness reports of which we can say certain things...

Step 2: dismiss a very substantial proportion of the evidence, acknowledging the explanations that sceptics have put forward:
  1. A proportion are misidentification or hoax.
  2. A proportion have witnesses with a camera to hand.
  3. A proportion use it and take some snaps.
  4. A proportion do not come out due to distance or malfunction.
  5. A proportion do not publish them.
Step 3: Throw in some arbitrary percentages:
You can play around with these numbers and come out with a varying number of photographs, but what proportions do you use to arrive at zero? Perhaps you decide 50% of these 1000 reports are real, 30% had a camera, 50% used them, 70% turned out and 80% published. That gives you forty two pictures over eighty three years. Or maybe you turn the screws and decide only 10% of sightings are viable, 20% had a camera, 50% were used, 30% turned out and 90% published.

Step 4: make sure you have some pieces of evidence left, and use expressions like "at least" to imply there are no doubt more.:
I know my position on that list and it is at least sixteen out of the twenty nine.

Step 5 will be to say as the ones left over at the end of Step 4 point to the phenomenon being real, maybe we ought to reconsider some of the items we discarded to hastily in step 3...
 
lordmongrove said:
Don't let the title put you off, it's better than most Loch Ness docs. The eel photo at the start is a case of forced perspective though. Watch out for the fat goth who looks like Grimly Feendish.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Aliens-Loch-Ness-Steve-Feltham/dp/B0B8NW3XKZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=26D0XZ35MPKFG&keywords=ALIENS+AT+LOCH+NESS&qid=1673478394&s=instant-video&sprefix=aliens+at+loch+ness,instant-video,520&sr=1-1
Click to expand...
I must admit that seeing a guy who looks like Grimly Feendish is of more interest to me than the documentary!
 
On calm days we get waves from the wash of ships out in the bay these can seem
very strange as the ship is already out of sight and likely never got closer than 7 miles,
these can seem very odd, with Loch Ness you will likely also get a wave that as been reflected
from the other bank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top