Reclaiming the Loch Ness Monster from the current tide of debunking and scepticism. If you believe there is something strange in Loch Ness, read on.
If something comes up quickly then its nearly impossible to snap a photo. But i am amazed at sightings that last a few mins dont produce a photo. Going back to the 60 ' s for example and ian camerons long sighting lasting half hour or so and witnessed by 8 other people. they must have seen something, and it has happened a few times so im amazed we dont have better photos of what is seen monster or no monster!
Well, a certain psychology kicks in if you are confronted with what you believe is a monster. You tend to just stand there agog, fixated on this unusual sight.And the closer it gets to you, the bigger the effect. Some cam overcome this frozen-ness, but I reckon it takes a certain, strong mental attitude.
GB that really is the most flimsy excuse for no photos. It doesn't wash at all.
You say that because as a sceptic you are less able to understand the shock and awe of seeing a 30ft monster rearing up in front of you.
Most witnesses are on land and on the road, which is usually some distance from (or at least above) the water's edge. Statistically anything that surfaces in their field of view is likely to be quite far away. Even if a witness is on a boat, a surfacing animal is statistically not likely to be right on top of the boat.Unless, of course, it is attracted by boats. In which case there ought to be many more sightings.
The further away the object is, the less likely shock and awe will prevent a picture.However, the further away the object is, the less convincing the photograph will be.Nessie's Paradox.
When you say "monster", surely you actually mean "animal"? Is Nessie somehow the only animal on earth which people are unable to raise a camera to, or is this all just utter nonsense?
You're maiking photographing the Loch Ness Monster sound like taking a picture of your pet cat.Nobody should be taken in by that argument.
And you are saying Nessie can sometimes frolic around on the surface for many minutes but people are unable to take photos - oh, apart from the various people who took the photos you've been saying are real on these pages. Somehow they managed not to be transfixed eh?Do you seriously think your argument convinces anyone other than those who are desperate to believe in Nessie despite the lack of any convincing photos to back up the spectacular "sightings"?
Frolicing for minutes on the surface? Hard cases make bad laws. Such cases are a small proportion of an already small database. You can't make arguments from a handful of cases where a camera may not be present.Some people WILL be transfixed or agog, get over it!But by and large most sightings are hundreds of metres away and will NOT produce the type of picture you demand.
I have photographed Moray Firth dolphins at a range of about 100 metres with what is by present day standards a very limited camera (5MP, 10x zoom). The results are more than good enough to identify the species and even recognise some individuals. If Nessie had been there I would have got the most detailed picture of her ever.For the record, I'm not a skeptic, I think people have seen something very strange in Loch Ness, and I visit regularly, camera in hand. But the evidence is that it doesn't surface very often.
Ha, agree totally. Very flimsy indeed.
Hmmm, im a believer (as the Monkeys sang) but i find your logic here pretty unconvincing Roland.Are you seriously claiming 'shock and awe' on the part of the witness is the reason there aren't far more photographs? Or more good photographs? I'm sure it's indeed not like snapping your pet cat - but i'm equally sure the vast majority of witnesses with a camera to hand would have the presence of mind to get at least one shot off. Elsewhere in the blog you argue that McNab had ample time and presence of mind to deploy 2 cameras and 2 lenses in the few seconds his sighting lasted.Great blog, but unconvincing thinking here for me.
1. It's not the only reason.2. As I said above, some freeze, but some don't.
Desperate Dinsdale and a few others had another - equally unbelievable - explanation for the strange disconnect between the number of sightings versus the lack of photos. They used to refer to the Loch Ness hoodoo or hex, some negative magical gobbledegook which they say caused cameras to malfunction or Nessie to do her circus act in the one spot the camera lookouts weren't watching at that moment. Seems that the monster hunters from every era have dreamed up unconvincing explanations for the lack of photos, when there is really only one explanation which makes any sense. But hey, that explanation isn't anywhere near as exciting is it?
Good one! Greta Finlay arguably had one of the best close up views of the beastie, and had she had the best camera of today’s technology, I dare say she would have been too dumbstruck and fascinated to use it.
Is there any anecdotal evidence to support this theory though? I've been following this phenomenon for years now and i'm hard pushed to think of a sighting report where the witness had a camera to hand, but lacked the presence of mind to deploy it.
Hi Glasgow Boy,I have another video if you're curious. Although the video has 'Nessie' in it's title, from the looks of the surrounding area, it wasn't filmed at Loch Ness but I'm sure it looks as if it's been filmed at a lake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1G76AyW1agNess.Perhaps a not too distant future article for your blog?
Wow - fun video. No, not Scotland. Now the lady filming really screams in terror when the head comes up so close to the boat (which is one point about witness panic talked about here), and then she wants to be gone pronto, with no more care for filming (another item to the point).If that had been a still camera she probably wouldn't have anything to show for this encounter with what's obviously a real and rather large animal. She'd have got a couple shots of odd splashing, completely missed the definitive shot when the head pops up for a split second (it's only fully exposed in one frame really), and then no more snaps because all she wants is to get out of there asap. She'd have no evidence to speak of, and yet she saw a lot. Still photography just isn't the tool for the job at Loch Ness.What the heck is that anyway? Very rounded head -- my first guess was False Killer Whale, but the eyes are too far forward. Not a regular orca either, from the lack of white colorations. It's very whale like, but the disturbance to the rear appears to be LATERAL tail swishing.
Well im nearly at the ness. Im there for 4 days! Ill be ready if something comes up shock or no shock lol
Let's cut thru this armchair pontifcating and hear from one actual witness:Researcher Still Believes in Loch Ness Monster3/13/94LONDON (Reuter) - Researcher Alastair Boyd who helped exposethe most famous Loch Ness monster picture as a fraud stillbelieves in the creature, Britain’s Today newspaper reportedMonday.It quoted Boyd as saying he was convinced he saw Nessie, asthe monster of popular legend is known, in the Scottish loch in1979.``I saw it roll around in the water like a whale. It musthave been at least 20 feet long,’’ he said.``That’s why I’m skeptical of people who claim to have takenphotos. When you see it you don’t have time to fiddle with acamera — you’re too busy picking your jaw off the ground.``It’s ironic, but I still believe there are creatures inthe loch.’’Back to the armchair pontificating!
Did Boyd have a camera to hand? Not being funny, but I've see Alastair Boyd on documentaries and he comes across as a very nervy, stuttering sort of man. Quite highly strung I thought. This single sample of ONE PERSON is not representative of 80 years of Nessie experiences. Note too that the above quote shows he disagrees with your armchair pontification about some photos being genuine! Did you miss that bit Roland? Or are you only picking out the parts of his statement which you like?
So, seeing something unidentifiable "rolling around like a whale" leaves one "too busy picking their jaw off the ground" to "fiddle with a camera", when that's the precise reason they were there? Right, sure, convenient way to claim a sighting yet provide no kind of evidence despite the ability to do so. It's not like we're talking about a 30-foot beast resembling long-extinct marine reptiles rising up right in front of you; rather, something looking like a whale rolling around. Sorry, don't buy such a lame excuse. Further, anyone looking to profit off the legend of Nessie certainly has a vested interest in claiming a sighting.
His camera was nearby, how far in metres I don't know. You better ask Alastair what he thinks of your judgement of him.Two people actually, his wife was beside him. How do you know it is not representative of 80 years of Nessie experiences? Just wondering how your analysis of sightings led to that conclusions or are you just pullimg statements out of the ether?Excuse me, I go to Loch Ness and conduct on site investigations of classic photos, so you can retract the "armchair pontification" bit!I also don't understand what you are saying about Alastair disagreeing with me that some photos being genuine. What were you expecting? Complete unanimity between Nessie believers on what is and what is not geunine? Get real, please.
Burton, you can call Alastair a liar if you wish. Strange that if he was seeking to profit off the "legend of Nessie" he goes off and proves the most famous image is a fake! If he was so emotional about preserving Nessie, I doubt he would written such a book.You should give Alastair more credit as a seasoned Loch Ness investigator.
Now now Roland, it was you who brought up the subject of 'armchair pontificating'!Surely by the logic being displayed here, anyone who's never been in the position where they have a good sighting and a camera to hand is 'armchair pontificating'? I'm guessing that's all of us, unless someone's going to tell me different?It's all good though. Again though, i don't see a weight of anecdotal evidence to support the theory being put forward here. We have a snippet from Alastair, but we'd need a few more of the same for the theory to have any real credibility.
Hence the reason I quote someone who has had the experience of a sighting. Again, I am approaching from the viewpoint of human psychology. The closer one gets to a 40 foot beast which may or may not attack you, the more one gets less concerned about a camera.
If there are 40ft beasts in the loch, how come the extensive BBC sonar search revealed nothing of the kind? And really, would such creatures only appear in 1 of 2 ways - either 10 feet away and scaring you half to death, or several hundred feet away and impossible to photograph clearly? Surely the law of averages would result in mid range sightings too - maybe 60ft to 150ft away so you can get a clear photo without messing your kilt? Also strange that "hunters" such as yourself and Steve Feltham (and others) never see Nessie when you have a camera. She has an incredible knack of avoiding people with cameras who are not scared. And I know that each summer there are hundreds of camera holding people at the loch, just desperate to film Nessie.
You're beginning to diverge here, why should the BBC sonar scan find anything?What do you know about it and what (in theory) should a Nessie sonar hit look like?How many 40ft beasts do you postulate are in the loch since you have asked?What do you mean by mid range sightings? People see the creatures over a mile away or 100 yards away. A mid range based on that would be over half a mile!I never see Nessie without a camera either. You overestimate how frequent and proximate such sightings are.All straw men arguments.
I clearly meant that a sample group comprising of Alastair Boyd is not a big enough sample to extrapolate out to your theory that the lack of photos is due to some kind of "shock and awe" syndrome. Like an anonymous poster above touches upon - where is the evidence of people with cameras in hand being unable to lift and press? Where are all the accounts of this happening?
No, you said one sample was not representative of 80 years of sightings. How do you know that? I know you will try and ask me the same, but you said it first!I will look up the cases when I have time, but the initial premise was based on human psychology. You seem to think people cannot freeze and stand agog at amazing sights. I can't let you away with such a dismissive statement.
Quite simply, I have never heard of a single case of someone holding a camera in their hand, looking at Nessie, but unable to click. That is what your entire case is built on. So where are the reports?I'm a sceptic and I don't think Boyd is a liar. On the other hand, I don't think he's a very typical guy either. Shame he didn't take photos - he and his wife could have had a rethink about how they interpreted what they saw if they had a photo sequence to study.
Let's widen the sample group a bit. You believe the Hugh Gray and the Peter McNab photos to be genuine. Clearly neither man froze or stood agog. In fact McNab apparently had the presence of mind and the time to change lenses on his Exakta camera - not a quick process, and with no autofocus he would need extra time to focus manually afterwards.
I am not sure we are talking about "camera in hand" here, more like "camera in nearby car" or something like that. My comments here were based on human psychology. As I said, I would have to sift thru reports to find any which talk about this.
David, Peter MacNab was an amateur photographer and frequent camera user. He would have been self-taught in automatically reaching for his camera.As for Hugh Gray, my guess would be his experience fighting in World War One (he was certainly on a minesweeper) hardened him against shocks.
My point being, I never said everyone would freeze, but a certain percentage will.
Roland, you need to accept that people (including believers) just aren't buying this one. You need a different angle here.
What? That people cannot be like "rabbits in a headlight" when confronted by a "monster"? Disprove please.
Disprove?? Surely it's your job to provide evidence to support the theory you're putting forward here.Show me body of evidence and i'll accept your theory. Until then it's just conjecture i'm afraid.
No more than sceptics think they don't have to prove the opposite stance.
GB, we don't need to disprove it - no one except Boyd has ever mentioned feeling this way. It's quite simply not a documented phenomenon, so therefore the burden of proof lies with you. You need to back up your theory here.
Really! I think its the sceptics that are clutching at straws calling Alistair Boyd a liar ( and his wife) !!!!
I don't think Boyd or his wife are liars, but I think they were mistaken. This almost trance-like state he alludes to does not sound like a good state of mind for making clear, unemotional judgments on what appears in front of you. I wonder how a person's recollection of what they just saw is affected when they snap out of this odd mental state?
Trance-like? You implying he was on LSD?
Ho ho, I'll assume that was a joke GB. I'm referring to this strange, bewildered state of mind Boyd refers to which leads him to believe no one could ever take a photo of Nessie.
No, clutching at straws is believing everything as gospel, pointing to incredibly minimal evidence as proof, and using negatives and excuses to prove and further those beliefs.I wasn't calling Boyd a liar, but so we're not mincing words, call it whatever you like. Somebody who has a vested interest in an agenda will say or do things that follow suit of said agenda. I wouldn't call Mr. Dinsdale a liar, but I don't believe his claimed "head/neck" sighting of the early 1970's. Many empty years of absolutely zero evidence of a belief Tim gave up his career for, after the film which sparked renewed and sustained interest in the phenomenon and was forever surrounded by doubt(and eventually proven to be a boat), Tim saw what he wanted to see. Ted Holiday is another example. He claimed a sighting near the Foyers River of a "mustard-coloref creature that looked like an upturned boat". He would later question his own sighting and say it may have indeed been nothing more than a boat. He claimed witness to other strange encounters and changed his beliefs to the more eccentric and fantastic side as time and a lack of solid evidence wore on. I don't brand him a liar as he fully believed what he believed, I would imagine. Boyd claiming a sighting doesn't make him a liar either, but seeing something strange and claiming it was the creature certainly benefits him, and that can't be questioned. Debunking the Surgeon's Photo has nothing to do with his own beliefs or sighting. Why back something you have been told and know is a fraud? That does nothing but hurt your own credibility. You don't have to take any and all evidence as canon to be a believer, and doubting evidence doesn't make you a sceptic. That argument is as silly as cold hands and shock & awe stopping you from taking a photograph of a creature in the Loch. Again, how does something unidentifiable rolling around like a whale stun somebody beyond ability to function? It doesn't. Finally, the giant squid comparison needs to end. Mid-to-deep-water, water-breathing creatures living in vast oceans don't make a good comparison to alleged creatures that break the surface and even come on land, for crying out loud! Further, how many giant squid carcasses, photographs, and videos have we seen? They certainly have been proven to exist by sound, solid, irrefutable evidence with no ambiguity clouding them. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Nessie.
I might as well throw my two cents into this mix. I agree with GB. Here's why. I live in a very rural locale in the pacific Northwest. Over the years I have seen many bears while walking/hunting/goofing off in the forest. Sows with cubs, males alone, cubs by themselves, bears sliding down trees, etc. I generally have a small camera with me. I have never been able to snap a shot of a common animal like a bear. Go figure, skeptics. GB is right. I get the distinct feeling that the skeptics here on this site would crap their knickers first on a sighting and not even think of their camera. It takes a cool head to snap a pic of something 'unreal.' I find it almost impossible to get a photo of something as mundane as a bear. You got to work at it. richard
Indeed, people seem to be implying it's like photographing your pet cat.
I don't see anyone suggesting it's like phographing a pet cat. I might say that's a "straw man" argument, but it seems clear that people generally use that phrase when they feel they're losing a debate.No, I think the bear analogy is absolutely perfect. According to Richard, bears are very difficult to film. However, because they actually exist, we have literally thousands of vivid photographs and video films viewable on the Internet and on TV. Thank you Richard, you could not have helped the sceptical case more if you'd tried to. By the way, do you believe in the Sasquatch by any chance?
Yet there are literally thousands of perfectly clear pictures of bears in the wild taken by amateur photographers, and in regions far less busy than Loch Ness.Again, this is not a theory we're seeing being put forward on this thread. It's pure conjecture.
Hello, Geordie.. Your last sentence reeks of snark. I could be wrong, so I will reply as if I am wrong and you are merely politely inquiring about another cryptid. Why, yes, I do think Bigfoot exists. Two miles from my home is a heavily forested road called 'Bigfoot Road'. For a good reason. Around here, you would be hard pressed to find folks who do not 'believe' in Bigfoot/Sasquatch. For me, bears ARE difficult to photograph, as my encounters are usually quick,unexpected, are of short duration, plus the slight danger factor. Kinda' like most Nessie encounters, imo. This does not prevent others from taking clear images of bears. My hat is off to them. My nature is to be skeptical, Geordie, but I have seen enough animal oddities to entertain the existence of Nessie. Or Bigfoot.Regards, richard
Ah, see that's altogether different and i would much more readily accept the brevity of encounters as a theory for the lack of photographs. It's a much more feasible suggestion than 'shock and awe' in my opinion.So in my view - if a sighting lasted only a few seconds, that seems a reasonable suggestion for why a picture was not taken. Also, many people don't carry cameras - that also seems a reasonable suggestion for why pictures aren't taken.'Shock and awe'? I don't buy it. And there's still no anecdotal evidence been produced to support that theory.
Let us say you (that being anyone) starts with the assumption that an animal exists that exposes enough of itself, and regularly enough, and for long enough at a time, to result in definitive surface photographs on at least an occasional basis. (Factored into all of these "enoughs" is that they suffice to offset the fallibility of the human photographers, whatever amount that would be.)To test your assumption, you can compare it to the existing photographic evidence, and in this case you'd correctly find it lacking. This indeed disproves your assumption that an animal exists that exposes enough of itself, and regularly enough, and for long enough at a time, to result in definitive surface photographs.This type of "skeptical" viewpoint where surface photographs are concerned is actually a tautology, and therefore inadmissible.That leaves two other possible assumptions that DO pass a comparison test with the scant photographic evidence.You can argue there's no animal -- but that's really hard to reconcile with so much eyewitness testimony, so much history, some inexplicable sonar contacts, and at least one good hydrophone recording. Not to mention some of the photos we do have, as inconclusive as they may be.Or you can assume there IS an animal which just does NOT expose enough of itself, and NOT regularly enough, and NOT for long enough at a time to give us (fallible humans) those nice surface pictures we want.A non-photogenic Nessie is easily the more parsimonious explanation of the two. It doesn't require us to explain away anything. There have been many non-photogenic aquatic animals, the giant squid being a case in point, and likely many more awaiting discovery.
On the other hand one may think the total lack of solid evidence points strongly towards eyewitnesses being mistaken in various ways. You pick which side feels right to you.
Wow GB, you sure enjoy leaving it a very long time before posting up sceptics' replies!
Actually, everyone's comments if you care to look. Other things take priority sometimes.
MY reply waited four days too Geordie, and I don't think you'd call it skeptical. Bloggers have lives! Or at least they should.
True enough. Loving this intelligent debate your pages seem to provoke, by the way.
Another reason for 9 months of the year is cold hands !!!! Hard fumbling about with a phone camera when ur hands are cold. Few times last week i tried to take sum snaps of various things but the cold on your hands is defo a problem .....as daft as it sounds :)
I'll pack my gloves, preparing for next visit right now!
"Nessie and 5 of her offspring frolicked in the water 20 yards away for 15 minutes, but god dammit I'd forgotten to bring my gloves.":-)
Glad i took mine lol
Hey Guys, I need to take some time off and deal with a bereavement. We shall "clash swords" later no doubt.
Condolences, Roland. Sorry to hear that.
Thanks, funeral tomorrow.
Latest news on Nessie http://t.co/vlsvTsaZK4
I covered this last December. :)http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/another-strange-satellite-image.html