New Video Proof of Nessie?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 27th, 2013
Cryptomundian chalupacabra brought this story to my attention:
Hello Nessie, it must be that time of year… amateur photographer snaps ‘large black object’ moving beneath waters of Loch Ness
David Elder, 50, takes mysterious picture while photographing a swan
Insists the image must show ‘a solid black object under the water’
New photo will fuel theories about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster
An amateur photographer has captured an eerie photo from the shore of Loch Ness which could encourage those who believe in tales of a monster living beneath the surface of the lake.
The image was taken by David Elder at Fort Augustus, at the south-west end of the 23-mile-long body of water in northern Scotland.
It shows a long bow wave apparently caused by some sort of disturbance on the surface of the loch.
Read the rest of the article here.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
saw the video on yahoo this morning.
the still looks interesting… but i dont see anything that tells me something living was making this wake/wave.
if you do, please explain… because i don’t see anything.
could have been wind, something under water like gases… just normal wakes (as noted by the smaller wake near the camera).
i dont see anything splashing like an animal would had it made this.
i mean, can you show this to someone and without question have people say that is the loch ness monster?
nope.
OMG he took a picture of a wake on Loch Ness! That must be proof of Nessie!
Um…proof?
Patterson and Gimlin shot film of a hairy hominoid. The hair might be a costume, but if it is it is utterly one of a kind and arguably the best example of the costumer’s art in human history. Experts looking at the film think it’s an unclassified animal. And here we are, 46 years later, debating what it is.
This? Proof?
No, don’t think so…
I think that comment was supposed to be sarcastic DWA. That is how I took it anyway.
maslo63: oh yeah, these frequently come with hooks on them. Sometimes I just can’t resist the bait, particularly when it’s an opportunity to point stuff out.
Mr. Christie looks for the least obvious explanation for what made the wake and then he assumes it is being made by something underwater. That is clearly a surface wake. Look up the lake towards Foyers on the right hand side and you will see that there are no less than three vessels up there.
My money is on one of them having created the wake which in classic fashion bounced off the side of the Loch and headed to the centre. The likelihood of Nessie existing is next to zero and this does nothing to change my mind about the possibility that it does.
Absolute proof! Absolute proof of constructive anecdotal interference. In other words–absolute proof of a wave in Loch Ness. Wow! Incredible!
Now what made the wave, that is another story. As dconstrukt stated, wind, boat, who knows? But it is certainly not proof that a living animal made that wave.
Just as DWA astutely stated, PG footage, it is not!
Craig I’d’ve said the topmost shot was of a dugong if this’d been taken off Florida but the darkness’s more consistent with a seal or even sea lion.
For my money though having watched the film with the eyes of someone who spent two consecutive summers studying odd wave formations on Lake Windermere under all sorts of lighting and weather conditions that’s more than just a wave and certainly isn’t created by a boat of any kind.
The sinuous way it seems t’curve back on itself almost in a question mark shape’s highly indicative of an organic cause to my mind but as to what the creature concerned actually was…?
I don’t think people around here understand irony. The video and Picture are ludicrous! As are all Nessie videos, BTW.
You guys are all crazy because that IS proof positive…
of the Wake Ness Monster!
As much as I love blobsquatches…I love wake monsters even more.
Well. it’s certainly proof that unusual wave patterns still occur in Loch Ness as the loch is quite historically known for odd wave formations. I believe that the “Many-humped” sightings are of wave patterns though that does not seem to be what’s shown here. This video reminds me a little of the Champ video where a series of undulating waves are passed closely by a water skier. It also appears rather close to the person filming. Perhaps he could have waded out a little for a better look. Of course, regular cameras and water don’t mix very well so I understand why he didn’t. Interesting…nothing more. It’s nice to see an actual event being recorded, neither hoaxed or staged as we have been seeing lately.
@volmar: Wow, ALL Nessie videos? Really? A pity some of our stalwart cryptozoologists in the field searching for this beast have to read your self-serving, skeptic drivel. @DWA: Proof? P/G level proof? @PhotoExpert: Absolute proof? No, No, and No. Volmars skeptical rant notwithstanding, I had thought you two far more objective than this.
Raider–objective is one thing, but “proof of Nessie?” This is so vague as to be anything. It may well be something beneath the waves churning up the surface, but it could also be undertow. Ness has a lot of wave action going on because of the layout and the depth and so on.
I’m a firm and staunch supporter of Nessie, despite all of the snubbing and hoaxery and mischief (not to mention the fact that people have gotten frustrated in the last decade because it’s still gotten nowhere). With all of the reports, accounts and so on, there’s still enough there to warrant a cryptid, but this video is not it.
If I get in “eye rolling” mode for anything its when a thread headline starts talking about “proof.” That’s usually the proverbial red flag that Craig, Loren or Nick has tossed us a bone to sniff over to see what else it could be first. And here, it could easily be a line of waves or undercurrent rolling. The fact that we’re having a little fun with it-well, what do you expect on a Tuesday…excuse me, it’s Wednesday now.
The world won’t come to a crashing end for Nessie…I have a feeling she throws out a tantalizing morsel every now and again, just to drive the hardcores nuts. She’s an evil temptress…
John,
I don’t think boat wakes bounce off the loch sides. They just roll onto the shore and dissipate.
The boats up ahead are too far away in my opinion to have an effect.
BTW the proof for Nessie better than than for Ogopogo!
Raiderpithicusblaci–Sorry pal, I’m not a “sceptic.” And unlike you, I am not a “believer” either. I tend to be OBJECTIVE like that.
However, I am educated enough to know the difference between a common everyday surface wake versus this splashing made by a living animal. Perhaps you have not been privy to the educational institutions that would have taught you that difference. How can I say that without even knowing you? Well, your grammar and posting provide a clue. You stated: “I had thought you two far…” I think you meant the word, too, and not two. But I do not mean to pick on you. I just wanted to point out that your fundatmental lack of education might have something to do with your lack of discerning comments made by people here.
Anyway Raiderpithicusblaci, I am going to help you out and educate you a bit here. I also tend to be a nice guy even when attacked by those with less education than me. Are you familiar with Wave Theory or perhaps Particle Theory? I am! Read up on that, especially the parts about constructive and destructive antimodal interference. That should help a bit and you will then reach the same conclusion as every one else. Pure logic!
So Raiderpithicusblaci, since I have sent you in the right direction, corrected your grammatical errors, and given you a heads up on further educating yourself, I will now address your post. Normally, if a member is simply posting, I let it be. But since you addressed me personally by screen name, I must correct your erroneous statements.
First of all, being objective and calling a spade a spade is not drivel! Let that be your first lesson. Educate yourself before making stupid statements. Volmar, DWA and myself are very astute and handsome individuals. Drivel is proclaiming something without proof. And that is what this photo is, drivel. The video is drivel. All of it is drivel if someone is trying to connect a simple wave to a living creature. You must first have proof of such a creature or any creature for that matter. No connection was made. I do not see a creature. What I do see is light and dark patterns in a wave that were mistaken for a living creature. Being well versed in optical physics, I can tell you that light can play tricks on the human eyes and mind. Darker water shadows and pareidolia made the photographer think he saw a living creature. When in reality, he sees a wave. We all see a wave. This is called fact and not drivel. I am sorry that anyone that disagrees with your “belief” system is automatically classified as a sceptic. Please do everyone a favor and do some reading. Educate yourself. And then come back to post after that. It is never a good idea to come to a gunfight with a knife. Or in your case, without any weapon at all.
Extraordinary claims must be met with extraordinary evidence as far as I am concerned. Someone connecting a wave to a lake monster or any undiscovered animal is just ludicrous.
It’s a wave!
SHJ has the right attitude. Some get too serious about this stuff.
Now I’m more serious than most; and so is PhotoExpert and so is SHJ. But one has to be serious in the right way about a subject 99.5% of which is filling slow news days.
It was as obvious as a sunrise to me, when I saw this title, that it was a tease to attract people, start conversation, and give some of us who are serious about this in the right way a chance to point out some stuff. It’s a peculiar genius of Cryptomundo. Serious discussions have come from stuff that …well, to say ‘didn’t look too promising’ is an understatement.
Proof isn’t something like this. Proof, in general, isn’t photographic, unless it is ALREADY KNOWN what the thing in the photo is. (You, robbing a bank.) A video of Nessie cleaning its teeth with a flosspick isn’t going to go anywhere unless there’s followup on the ground. (OK, in the water.) And don’t say ‘everybody knows this,’ because every time a video or photo comes up here, people who have no idea what it is are telling us what it is.. I won’t say it’s tiresome; it’s funny and a continual source of entertainment and chances to point stuff out.
Like: I don’t know what this is, and neither do you.
If it gets three Royal Navy subs in the Loch, and we have proof of what Nessie is within the week, this is one of the most important zoological events ever.
Anyone wanna bet that outcome?
Right.
My whole opinion of the Loch Ness Monster changed, once I learned that seals regularly enter the loch. I believe this is what the majority of witnesses are seeing. Just upon first glance of the top photo, it looks like the head of a seal, swimming in the lake.
I am correcting my earlier post…it was a video of Ogopogo where the odd wave formations were interrupted by a water skier and motor boat. My mistake, but same conclusions.
PhotoExpert : Come on, this self-serving “objectivity” is getting tiresome. I don’t think you’re as “objective” as you would have us believe. The best thing to do with this video is file it away under “unknown” and leave it at that.
This, to me, does show something moving through the water, but there’s not enough information to say what it is or isn’t. It’s best left at that.
I was unaware of seals in Loch Ness; this certainly could be one. How come it took all these years to learn about the presence of seals there? It’s a vital piece of information, to be sure.
I could go on, but I’ve made my point. It certainly something worthy of further research. But I don’t see Nessie.
I came, I saw, I didn’t see Nessie. Nothing is changed by this video.
@PhotoExpert: I never stated that this or any other video/photo was absolute proof. I also never called you a “sceptic”. As for my grammar, I posted just what I meant to, simultaneously addressing both you and DWA (“I had thought you TWO far more objective than this). That’s TWO, as in PLURAL. It’s not rocket science, PAL. I did so because I greatly respect and enjoy your posts, both you and DWA. But the fact that you insult me and question my education (or lack there of) because I had the audacity to address you by your screen name and question your objectivity reveals more about you than maybe you’d like to admit (By the way, I’m Mexican-American; I reserve the right to bring a knife to a gun fight anytime I wish). I too saw a wave; I thought my post was crystal clear in stating as much (“Proof? P/G level proof? Absolute proof? No, No, and No.”) Perhaps if YOU read more, instead of spewing more of your typical ignorant, abhorrent rhetoric, it would have been clear to even you. But I’m a bigger man than that; perhaps in your myopic view, you thought yourself under “attack”; and responded in your usual repellant, bullying fashion. I truly look forward to many such discussions; and this Cryptomundo is big enough for all of us.
There are a few people posting here that should study hydrodynamics and wave behavior before they make uninformed remarks about wakes and waves not being able echo off opposite sides of narrow lakes like Loch Ness and doing odd things when they converge and cross paths. Some are called seiches or sloshes for just one example…it’s well established in the literature and there are films and videos of these water effects available to view. Go read up on it.
I won’t be so bold as to say what the image in this video is…but, I’m pretty sure what it isn’t.
Goodfoot–Hey buddy! I see you take offense to the use of my word “objective”. If I declared it was Nessie, would that be objective? If I said it was a seal or known animal, would that be objective? What word would you like me to use in place of objective. Because declaring it anything other than what it is, would be subjective. Logic dictates that there are two possible ways for me to go. I can declare it is something it is not or not seen. That is subjectivity. Or I can declare it for what I see and know it to be, a wave. That would be objectivity. The person declaring it a wave would be objective. Ergo, I was being objective.
Everyone else sees my objectivity. Why do you have a problem with it. And please, how is being objective self serving? Seriously, please answer that. I am dying to hear your response to that. Especially since my objectivity and photo analysis has benefitted everyone here at Cryptomundo. I always share my results here. You have seen me do that. If my objectivity was self serving, I would not share it and just keep it to myself. So please extrapolate how my objectivity is “self serving”. That has never been the case!
You may not like it or maybe you just don’t like me. Or maybe you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. But how is being objective as I always am, self serving? Does my objectivity offend you in some way. When I share with fellow Cryptomundians my comments and photo analysis, how is that self serving. I am not getting paid anything for doing that. I donate my time to that endeavor for the benefit of all. I receive no recognition personally, because I have a screen name and prefer my anonymity. So indirectly, it does not benefit me either.
I am curious to hear your defense of your previous post now that I have brought the facts to life. And Goodfoot, if you want to deny the truth of my objectivity and altruistic donations I have made to this site, I would like to know why you grow weary of the benevolent attributes. Kind of tells us the kind of person you really are. Tiresome of helping others while remaining objective? Really? You want to publicly post that about me?
Hopefully, you are just having a bad day. If that is the case, sorry will do!
DWA–Well said! Perfectly stated brother! Once again, you hit the nail on the head.
Raiderpithicusblaci–LOL Nice try! No, I had you pegged right. I just left a little bait in that last post to see if you would nibble. Man, you not only nibbled, you swallowed it whole and ran off with it. Now I get to reel you in!
See, Raiderpithicusblaci, you lumped DWA, myself, and Volmar into the same category. That is why you mentioned us by name in the same exact paragraph. If you were not lumping us together, then you would have used separate paragraphs. To make sure of this, I had to test you. Either your grammar and education is lacking or you knew exactly what you were doing. So I baited you with the “two” and “too” thing. And sure enough, you took the bait. You came back here posting with a vengence with perfect sentence structure and grammar. Hell, I even mistype sometimes. So the “two” and “too” is no big deal. I have done that. But as an opportunity to use psychology and bait someone in order to get a response. Which I did, so my plan worked perfectly.
Now that I got you here, it is time to address your post. I do not mind being lumped in with Volmar and DWA. They think much like me and I consider them very intelligent posters. I respect them. And I agree with them almost each and every time they post. When you lumped us together in the same paragraph, addressing each of us individually in the same paragraph, you were speaking about each of us with each comment you made in that paragraph. You confirmed you were doing that when you responded to the bait about your grammatical skills. I thought you possessed them but your taking the bait just confirmed that fact!
With that being said, it is now evident you were not only calling Volmar a sceptic but DWA and me as well.
And I did not insult you at all. I merely baited you a bit to confirm your educational level or lack thereof. But here’s the thing. My plan worked. You even admit that you were questioning my objectivity. Here let me use your own words: “I had the audacity to address you by your screen name and question your objectivity…”
Raiderpithicusblaci, do you see how funny this is? You say you are a big fan and like my posting and DWA posting, yet you call us out as sceptics and in your own words admit that you questioned our objectivity originally. Basically, you are saying, yes, PhotoExpert, you were right about what you posted but I could not refuse the bait you left for me and came back to post and confirm your hypothesis. Do you see the humor in that? You can’t have it both ways. You either were not questioning our objectivity or you were. You come back here and say you were not but in the same paragraph admit that you were. So if you were, you can neither take offense to me pointing that out or act insulted by the truth. Quit playing the victim!
The reality is, you questioned our objectivity. DWA, Volmar and myself take exception to that. When you do that, we will answer. So will others such as Cryptokellie and Springheeledjack and many others. Raiderpithicusblaci, you can’t have it both ways.
Now with that being said, you taking the bait and responding, I want to have a serious conversation with you. No BS, no PhotoExpert witty humor, and I will put the gun down. Here goes:
Raiderpithicusblaci–Thank you! Thank you for manning up and coming back here to respond to my bait. I respect that! Why? Most would have run off. You did not! That shows me you are not some classless, unintelligent person! You have guts. You also finally admitted that you were indeed questioning DWA, Volmar and my objectivity. You were reluctant to do so, but did finally admit. I respect that as well. Admission of the truth, even though reluctantly doing so, is still admission of the truth. I also thank you for your comment about enjoying and respecting my posts. Even though it was a little backhanded complement. After the complement, how did you put it? Oh yes, here it is (spewing more of your typical ignorant, abhorrent rhetoric) OK, I even appreciate that because you stated it intelligently without namecalling which is something I do all the time. I think you may be picking up some of my habits. But I really do congratulate you on your vocabulary there. Nice job! And you interjected humor while responding. You stated: (By the way, I’m Mexican-American; I reserve the right to bring a knife to a gun fight anytime I wish). Alright, I hate to admit it, but you made me laugh! That was pretty funny. I definitely appreciated that too!
You know, while I have been talking seriously to you here, I am finding many similarities in our posting style. I never disliked you but now I am actually starting to like you. I definitely like your posting style. Since I have been here at Cryptomundo longer, did you learn that from me? If so, I like it and you are welcome! LOL
While we are being honest here, I have to address one more thing you mentioned. You stated: “I thought my post was crystal clear…” In answer to that, no, it was not crystal clear. It was confusing. Oh, I got the no, no, and no, part of it. But when you prefaced your post by lumping me, DWA and Volmar together, it made it ambiguous as to what you were saying. Your intentions seemed in contrast to what you were posting. Understand? I wish you would have made your first post more like your follow up post to my bait. That was clear. Most of the time it is better to write a longer post and really clarify. You ended up coming back anyway, so maybe next time just make the first one more wordy and clear to begin with.
No, I am not really myopic and really did not consider myself under attack. My response would have been much more forceful if I thought you were actually attacking me. I would not have left bait for you, I just would have reeled you in immediately. Yes, I agree with you, sometimes my posts are repellant. But if you take note, I never attack anyone personally, just their point of view. And this is always in response to them throwing the first punch. You will never see me come in here and mention someone by name and start posting comments towards them. I always take the defensive point of view. You will notice, each and every person I question is after they bring up my name first or post to something I have said. Take you for example. I never started posts directed towards you ever, until your post was directed towards me and then questioned my objectivity. You threw the first punch. I merely responded! And I still was not sure about the punch you threw. Maybe you intended to hit someone else and it grazed me. That is why I did not immediately throw a punch back but merely set some bait. So yes, I agree with you. I do post repellantly at times. But in bullying fashion? I definitely disagree with you there! I am never a bully. I detest bullies and always put them in their place. You should know that already since you are a fan of my postings. Bullies attack! I never attack but do defend. Quite the opposite of a bully.
Anyway, I am glad you responded to my bait. I actually like you and your posting. I just wish you would not lump people together when posting. And I wish you just would have come out in your first post and said, PhotoExpert, I question your objectivity! I can deal with that. But I had to bait you before you came in and stated that. Next time, man up in the first post instead of the second. I respect and appreciate that kind of honesty.
Raiderpithicusblaci, I definitely enjoyed our discussion here. I think I may have found a new friend here at Cryptomundo since your intelligence and posting style is similar to mine. I like it! And Cryptomundo is definitely big enough for us all. If there were not so many varied opinions, it would be boring. And I too look forward to many future discussions here and with you. Just be sure to say what you mean the first time. Even if you disagree with me or anybody, don’t sugarcoat it. I would rather you say, PhotoExpert, that is BS and here is why I disagree. I won’t be offended. In fact, I would appreciate that! Instead of ambiguously lumping people together and drawing connections to what your true intentions are. Just say that directly!
Seriously good posting, Raiderpithicusblaci! Especially loved the humor!
Yes, seals come into Loch Ness. One estimate by someone who did a study on them, was an entry into the loch every two years. So pretty rare.
And to all a good night!
Raider–you forgot: “God Bless us everyone!”
Oops, that was The Night Before Christmas, not Christmas Carol…my bad.
Either way, Craig, Loren and the others are the evil puppet masters…making us all dance with their posts, taunting us to chat and get into it.