Photos Enhanced: Nessie Goes on Vacation

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on September 3rd, 2015

Cryptomundian PhotoExpert has enhanced the photo taken by Mervyn Rolfe of a Nessie-like object:


Yes. nice example of pareidolia!

Well, it sure does look like some kind of a monster. And I have no doubt that it may have appeared to be swimming or floating for that matter. If you want a little personal attention or you want to bring a little attention to a specific geographic location, the quickest way to do that is to take of photo of something that is special or interesting and then publish that photo. It can even be a questionable photo or blurry photo. “Believers” will circulate it, make it viral, or do anything they can to make it appear as something of mythical proportions.

For me, just looking at it initially, it looked like a floating tree branch, partially submerged. I have seen many such tree branches in my lifetime, similar to this. But how would one attribute swimming to this photo? Well, things that float will be moved by current. Unfortunately, we do not have video or we could debunk it immediately. Or if we had a series of photographs, we could prove it or debunk it immediately. We do not!

Add a name to a photograph and it no longer seems like a hoaxer or prank. The name of someone adds more credibility to their story. Add a title to that name, and well, that seals the deal for “believers”. Mervyn Rolfe, former Provost and Lord Lieutenant of the City of Dundee–man, that photo has to be Nessie! WRONG!

Fortunately, I am not a believer or skeptic. I am objective.

Therefore, I decided to give the photo a quick look. I increased the pixel count on the photo and enlarged it.


First of all, the three so called humps were not in a straight line. That screams of tree branch to me.

Secondly, the water is moving as indicated by the wavy surface of the body of water.


Thirdly, the first hump closest to the middle of the photo than the other two, has a hole right through it!!! If that is supposed to be a vacationing Nessie, it could not have been swimming. In fact, the hole is so big, you can see the water on the other side.

Hmmm, no way this is a living creature if it has that big of a hole in it’s head. Which leads me to believe that someone with a title to their name is the one with the hole in their head, trying to pawn this photo off as Nessie.

In conclusion, Mervyn Rolfe, former Provost and Lord Lieutenant of the City of Dundee, this is no Nessie photograph. You photographed a branch of a tree! Your title does not help you here. So sayeth PhotoExpert, former photographic expert and Lord Lieutenant of the Kingdom of Cryptomundo!

But good try! Objectivity always beats belief or twisting of reality. I will email Craig with the enlargements, so he may post them here for all to see, thus discrediting this entire story, except to the die hard “believers”!
~ PhotoExpert

About Craig Woolheater
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.

10 Responses to “Photos Enhanced: Nessie Goes on Vacation”

  1. springheeledjack responds:

    Kudos PE.

    All of this illustrates exactly why a picture of a “lake monster” is never ever going to solve the issue.

    One still against a backdrop does absolutely nothing except help you discover the fakes and mis-identifications. Especially at range, it’s easy to see something in the water and assume it’s a lake critter.

    I walked across a bridge just today and saw a log floating along (or was it? 🙂 ) and I just observed how it floated with the current and lazily worked its way downstream. I knew it was not animate because it never shifted position, it maintained its shape, and even though it was long and dark, it never behaved as anything other than a log floating downriver.

    It’s always easy to use that imagination and go too far. Better to pick things apart and take the dozen close looks to prove it’s mundane. THAT way, when you do come across the “Something” that you can’t pick apart no matter how hard you try, that’s when you know you’ve got something cryptozoological.

    Thanks P.E.!

  2. sasquatch responds:

    Craig, why do you say the head has a hole in it? That first loop could be neck with the head further in front, but under water…I’m not saying this couldn’t be a log or row of otters, but that statement didn’t make sense to me. I never thought that the first part was a head, but a loop if this is a serpent of some kind.

  3. PhotoExpert responds:

    springheeledjack–You are welcome my astute friend! Your methodology in analysis is very similar to the way I go about things. You have to use your common sense and go through a mental checklist. When you start seeing red flags, then I see the need for analysis. Then I can have an informed opinion!

    Again, thanks for the kudos SHJ!

  4. mandors responds:

    I’m not sure “hole” in the “head” is so much a giveaway as PE thinks. If it was, and I’m not saying it is, some serpent-like animal or an eel, it could simply be a portion of its neck extending our of the water.

    The problem I have is the lack of apparent motion. An eel, a snake or even Nessie would be moving. Such motion affects the surrounding water such that there would be some rippling. If the object was an animal swimming, for example we, would expect to see some form of wake. If it was swimming on the surface, that wake most likely would be in a “V” shape.

    For these reasons, I agree with PE it is most likely something floating in the water, and as PE notes a branch is the most probable.

    Still, good stuff! Keep ’em coming Craig!

  5. sfseaserpent responds:

    We (Bill and Bob Clark) agree with sasquatch and the other posters who said that the front portion could be another arch of the animal and not the head.

    In fact, we saw the animal in SF bay create arches that looked exactly the same sticking above the surface of the water.

    BTW, we recently sent Loren 2 DVDs.

    One DVD contains a copy of our entire February 26, 2004 video and the other DVD contains another video we took about 3 months later.

    Each DVD includes four versions of each video. One version at normal speed, one version at 1/8th speed, one version at normal speed with a “Find Edges” analysis and one version at 1/8th speed with a “Find Edges” analysis.

    The “Find Edges” analysis of our 2/26/04 video clearly shows the outline of several large serpentine marine animals and proves National Geographic’s analysis by Grant Fredericks that the objects in are video are “probably birds” is wrong.

    We also gave Loren permission to have both videos examined and analysed by anyone he chooses and we look forward to more analysis of both of our videos by Cryptomundo.

  6. springheeledjack responds:


    Very interesting indeed. I’ve heard of the SF Bay critter–even seen one video. It’s a good point, but again, the problem with a single photograph is that you get very little sense of movement, whereas a video you can see undulation, waves coming off the object and so on.

    I am always open minded, but take a harsh stance toward any photo no matter how sincere and well meaning.

    Hopefully your videos will be opened up to public viewing at some point–USO’s are my favorite cryptids and I am always excited to add more weight to swimming cryptids.

  7. PhotoExpert responds:

    sasquatch–It was not Craig that said it had a hole in it’s head, it was me! And no, it could not have the head further in front to the right, because as the last segment submerges, it bubbles out air from underwater. That is where the supposed head is supposed to be. Watch the entire video and you will see that happen.

    You could be correct with the head being underwater and further up to the right, but then the alleged creature would then have two heads, one at each end. Are we to believe it is a two-headed monster with heads at both ends? Because if the head is the last thing we see submerging in the video and you think the head could be further up, then we have a two headed creature, with a head at both ends!

    And sasquatch, the hole in the head is just one of the many points of data I bring up in excluding this as a living creature. All told, it goes against all logic, common sense, and what is known about existing animals. Expelling air, after just taking in air, makes zero sense for any living creature that is an air breather. It goes against nature and survival. That is what seals the deal for me!

    mandors–I agree with you! The hole in the head is just one of the many reasons I gave for this not being a living creature. But separately, each of those arguments hold weight. And together, those many reasons have a synergistic effect as to why this can not be a living creature. Yes, the lack of horizontal movement is a big red flag for me too, just one of the reasons I mentioned. But the biggest reason is the expelling of air before submerging. That could be a death sentence for any living creature and no air breather in the known world does that. But we are to believe this one mythical creature is the only one to do that? LOL So that is my biggest reason for this being an animate object devoid of any life force. Unless one wants to explore fantasy, then we can see it is the only one that does that.

    Bill and Bob Clark–You seem like pretty honest and forthright guys. I will address that later in my post. I am not in disagreement with you there. Theoretically, it could be a big arch. But if it is, we would expect to see the same hole in the other arches. But magically, this supposed creature only has one hole in one of it’s arches. But for the sake of argument, let’s say I agree with you on the hole being formed in only one arch of the supposed creature. Let’s say we agree 100%. My question is, why then do you ignore all the other points I bring up. Why not explain those points away?

    So let me ask you outright, why does the supposed creature expel air before submerging, going against every law of nature for an air breather? And why don’t you both explain to us why the seagulls in the background are bigger than the width of this alleged monster? I would not call it a monster being about a foot in width.

    I have other questions which you both conveniently ignored. Why is there no horizontal movement by the supposed beast? Why could it not be plastic tubing in the example I gave above?

    I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have to agree with my assessment because you never explored those possibilities before. And when questioned, you simply take the “believers” stance of selectively picking one piece of the evidence supplied while ignoring the majority of the evidence presented. It’s like a detective that finds out a crime occurred. He has a suspect with blood on his hands, a murder weapon in his house, motive, but the time of death may be an hour off. So you argue about the time of death because that is the only thing that is debatable.

    It’s funny, after selectively picking one of the smaller of the many points I made about this being animate non-living creature, you ignore the other key facts and mention Loren Coleman. Why do that? Oh, and Loren is a friend of mine. I have no problem with you mentioning his name. But I find it curious not that you mention his name or are passing on the videos to him. I view that as a way to avoid the many other facts provided and move onto something else. You answer the question about the time, ignore the blood, motive and murder weapon, and then mention the name of some big DA (Loren Coleman). You do that dismissively, as if the mentioning of a prominent person’s name in the field of Cryptozoology allows you to not answer the other factual arguments. Not so fast!

    Please, indulge me, and try to answer my other questions pertaining to more significant data presented. You seem allusive.

    Seriously, I would love to see your other videos here on Cryptomundo, especially since you posted, “we look forward to more analysis of both of our videos by Cryptomundo”. If you really mean that and are going to follow through with that, Kudos to you! I respect that! And it adds a credibility factor to your story. You are putting them up for all to see. It is honest and tells me you are not hoaxers or trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Much respect on that!

    But your dismissiveness of the facts presented, selectively picking just one point to argue, the easiest point to argue of the many presented, ignoring the many other reasons presented, and then mentioning Loren’s name for a degree of credibility–seems elusive to me and the actions of “believers”. Your promise to post the other videos here seems very objective and agreeable to me. That is contrary to what “believers” would do. So I have hope for you. But it remains to be seen. If you are not believers then please indulge us all and address my other reasons as to why this is not a living creature. I don’t mind being proven incorrect. But you have to address my assertions to do that! Prove me wrong!

    And again, kudos to promising to post the other videos. One last thing that may surprise you both. I am in agreement, if it is the same video footage I saw before, that is not any group of birds in that video. I agree with you on that!

  8. sfseaserpent responds:

    Pe, we will try to answer some of your questions.

    We are not aware that there is a video of this sighting.

    Our comments were limited to the posted photo.

    Regarding the fact that the portion of the object nearest the middle of the photo shows a space between the object and the water while the other two objects don’t can be explained.

    It’s possible for that to occur if the object closest to the middle of the photo is higher out of the water than the other two arches.

    If those small dots in the background are the seagulls you are referring to, they don’t appear to be larger than the width of the object.

    As far as your estimate of the size of the object, if it is an animal in the photo, it’s possible that it is not a full grown animal.

    We haven’t “conveniently ignored” any of your questions or “selectively picked” one point to argue.

    We are not going to comment on any of the other points you made because we haven’t seen the video that you were referring to.

    We only mentioned Loren Coleman to make the members of this site aware of the fact that we sent copies of two of our videos to him.

  9. PhotoExpert responds:

    sfseaserpent–OK, I see where some of the disagreements lie. You were referring only to the screen shot and photo enhancement and I was talking about this thread a the thread of a supposed Nessie on vacation, that contained a video of a supposed creature submerging under the water. We were not on the same page. I see your comments come from a different frame of reference. Not a problem! We are on the same page now.

    I took the opportunity to look into the background of you guys. You seem to have a couple of different webpages or at least post comments on different webpages. Some of those sites I visited do not seem to be active currently. That is a shame because they had some good discussion, photos, or comments from you.

    The more I researched, it seems you two have been at this for a while and seem very open. I appreciate that as well. You seem to be dedicated, do not have an agenda, other than that you have witnessed or documented certain sightings. You even went as far as to try to have some of your videos analyzed. You seem pretty forthright. But you also seem very determined to share what you have experienced. And I must say, after reading some posts at other sites, you handled the senseless attacks very well. You remained objective.

    There was one thread at another site where you reached out to have video analyzed and the skeptics attacked not only you but the credentials of the people doing the analysis. So you posted the resume and still they attacked you. I thought this was unfair because you merely took the help offered to you when you said you would supply videos to anyone who was interested. My feeling is that you can not ask for more than that. And yet you were unfairly attacked.

    My opinion of you and what you are doing has been swayed a bit towards you not being “believers” but trying to be objective and looking for an explanation. You have a history of doing that and have stuck to it.

    So I am going to applaud you on that basis! I must confess, I tried to see how you would react to criticism. But you took it in stride. You reacted the same way when I read posts at other sites where skeptics were attacking you on a personal level. You did not break! A true “believer” would have broken or been overly defensive. You were not! And when I tried to rub you a bit to get a reaction out of you, you showed no emotion. A believer would showed emotion. For that reason, I feel you are more objective people than you are believers. And because you displayed that lack of emotion and even welcome criticism, I think you both are above board and really just seeking answers.

    So thanks for replying! Keep doing things the way you are doing them. And I think you guys are the real deal and not just a passing fad! With that I wish you luck and hope you post your videos here.

  10. sfseaserpent responds:

    PE, thanks for your response.

    You can go to our blog and get our email address.

    If you email us your mailing address then we will send the 2 DVDs to you at our expense.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.