• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nessie Video

Just took a look at the poll that they are running and as of 637 votes, 24% are "Unsure" and 55% are "Inconclusive/Could be anything" (Don't know what the difference between the two opinions is.)
 
Whatever it is seems to stay in the same spot throughout the video. The motion of the waves (difficult to see in this highly compressed video) indicates a windy day, so maybe it's just some submerged which, every now again, break the waves going by.

I'm not even sure that's Loch Ness, let alone the Loch Ness Monster.

David
 
1st comment for the cameraman - "Get a tripod as%hole!"

2nd comment - I really have no idea what the guy was watching... but if I was forced at gunpoint to guess I would say a waterbird or two. The cameraman seemed pretty interested in underwater shadows but they aren't visible in the tape and I doubt they were clearly visible to him either. Why didn't the fool try to get closer after he'd already gotten 3 minutes of distant footage?
 
1 vote for Sand bar here. Look at it, it never actually moves, his jerky camera work is probably to imply motion, but it doesn't. Check the left side of the camera, the shore juts out at that point and is always the same distance away from the object. It looks to me like a barely submerged piece of sand bar that when on a windy day, waves start rolling in, gets exposed for short periods of time as the water crests over it, when the water smooth, its submerged again and not visible. Notice it looks to be the exact same shade as the shoreline. I at first thought it was moving to the side, but after keeping track of the shoreline everytime he wobbled left, I knew it wasn't moving at all. If it was something it sat in the same place submerging, surfacing, submerging, surfacing. Like...uhhh....a sand bar :).
 
voidx said:
If it was something it sat in the same place submerging, surfacing, submerging, surfacing. Like...uhhh....a sand bar :).
Click to expand...

Watching the video again... it seemed to me the object was not always the same distance to the shore.(assuming it was the same object!) And with about 1:50 left in the tape, whatever object he's filming appears to be leaving a wave trail... suggestive of motion.
 
I can't get the video to run. I tried three different browsers. First one crashed. Second one tossed out a message that said, "This page requires that you download and install a plug-in but does not specify which one." (That's what the message said, I didn't make that up). Brilliant web design. :rolleyes: The third one pretended to open Windows Media Player but just sat there and did nothing. I just love homeopathic technology. Sigh...
 
To my eye, whatever it was seemed to be stationary, so a sandbar sounds about right (I was thinking rocks or a sunken log, myself). I am no biologist but I would have expected some sort of undulations, either side to side or up and down, and/or some sort of wake had it been an animal of any sort.
 
dingler44 said:


Watching the video again... it seemed to me the object was not always the same distance to the shore.(assuming it was the same object!) And with about 1:50 left in the tape, whatever object he's filming appears to be leaving a wave trail... suggestive of motion.
Click to expand...
I see the wake trail you're mentioning at the end, unfortunately after we see the wake trail, he never pans left again to see how far away it is from the shore. I watched it very carefully, and up until this point, it is exactly in the same spot, the same distance away from the point of the jutting shoreline. Plus if you stick something out of the water, and the water is flowing quickly, even if the object is stationary, it will appear to have a wake trail will it not?
 
dingler44 said:
1st comment for the cameraman - "Get a tripod as%hole!"
Click to expand...
I second the motion. At one point the photographer says it isn't ducks, but it isn't clear to me why he thinks so. Judging the scale by the pair of birds that fly by, the things in the water are about the size of ducks. At any rate, they didn't look big enough to be plesiosaurs.
 
I thought the object was stationary too. Also second the comment why didn't he get closer for a better look, i would have if i saw something interesting enough to film.
 
voidx said:

I see the wake trail you're mentioning at the end, unfortunately after we see the wake trail, he never pans left again to see how far away it is from the shore. I watched it very carefully, and up until this point, it is exactly in the same spot, the same distance away from the point of the jutting shoreline. Plus if you stick something out of the water, and the water is flowing quickly, even if the object is stationary, it will appear to have a wake trail will it not?
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the white stuff being the same distance from the shore the whole time. I wonder if it's not an object at all... but small waves breaking periodically.

As for the wave trail at the end, yeah, if the water was moving quickly. But if there was a fixed object, there likely would have been at least a small wave trail visible for the whole video... unless there was a sudden reason for the current to change... like maybe a strong wind, however the motion of the rest of the water seems to stay the same.

I don't know. I feel like I'm trying to analyze a puddle of mud. Not too interested in taking it further than this!:wink:
 
dingler44 said:
I think you're right about the white stuff being the same distance from the shore the whole time. I wonder if it's not an object at all... but small waves breaking periodically.
Click to expand...
I kind of wondered this as well, it looked to me like small waves breaking over top of some slightly submerged stationary object, but I agree, its almost impossible to tell from this video.

As for the wave trail at the end, yeah, if the water was moving quickly. But if there was a fixed object, there likely would have been at least a small wave trail visible for the whole video... unless there was a sudden reason for the current to change... like maybe a strong wind, however the motion of the rest of the water seems to stay the same.
Click to expand...
Good point.

I don't know. I feel like I'm trying to analyze a puddle of mud. Not too interested in taking it further than this!:wink:
Click to expand...
Amen to that. I find it funny that we all see it as nothing phenomenal at all, but the website refers to the video thusly:
In April we were given a remarkable piece of footage.
Click to expand...
 
Not exactly high quality video imagery, uh? Standard bigfoot-UFO-ghost video-picture quality. Could have been lots of things, including Nessie.

BUT...
-How could a reptile survive on very cold water?
-How could a viable (able to breed and maintain stable numbers) population of large unknown animals survive in Loch Ness? Loch Ness is not exactly teeming with life and is not that big, people have searched for Nessie many times, even using sonar scans, and also no monster corpse has ever been found ashore.

With the above in mind, what are the odds that a population of plesiosaur-like animals (even if seal-sized plesiosaurs) live on the lake?

This piece of evidence is too thin against such overwhelming odds. Beside those who get their money from tourism nearby the lake, just the standard hollow-headed woo-woos would accept it...
 
It looks like the same current-wakes that has been filmed umpteen times claiming "proof" of poor Nessie. One thing thoug: Why would the cameraman wish to remain anonymous? If i had taken a film of Nessie i would like my name to be very known.;)
 
arcticpenguin said:

I second the motion. At one point the photographer says it isn't ducks, but it isn't clear to me why he thinks so. Judging the scale by the pair of birds that fly by, the things in the water are about the size of ducks. At any rate, they didn't look big enough to be plesiosaurs.
Click to expand...

Cos if ducks sat still on the surface of Loch Ness for that long, the monster would eat them! ;)
 
No Nessie in the picture, but I think I saw some aliens turn into demons.

(Long-time posters will understand that line.)
 
Wow, unremarkable, but what bothers me is that the logo for the centre for fortean zoology seems to be a tasmanian tiger. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom