Nessie: Addressing An Old Photo

Posted by: Nick Redfern on June 26th, 2013

Water Horses Loch Ness

“…the object, in my opinion, is not a bird. If it was the Loch Ness Monster, then evidently it surfaced for only a short time before submerging again. Flash sightings are not uncommon and the Monster is often been and gone before its audience even realises what is going on. From a Nessie perspective, this would appear to be the case here.

“As for the morphology of the creature, the sinusoidal nature of the ‘neck’ is not unusual either. The witness database certainly points to a neck (or whatever the appendage is) possessing a high degree of flexibility. Some witnesses also refer to something akin to musculature rippling or changing though it is unclear what is actually changing under that monstrous skin.”

Now, if you’re wondering what the two paragraphs above are all about, I’ll tell you. They are extracted from the latest article by Roland Watson/a.k.a. Glasgow Boy at his Loch Ness Mystery blog.

Roland (the author of The Water Horses of Loch Ness) takes a look at a purported photo of a Loch Ness Monster. Moreover, it’s a photo that often fails to get the same degree of publicity and commentary as others.

Roland, fortunately, provides us with a good look at the photo, as well as a solid analysis of what it shows, or doesn’t show.

Here’s where you can find the full article.

Nick Redfern About Nick Redfern
Punk music fan, Tennents Super and Carlsberg Special Brew beer fan, horror film fan, chocolate fan, like to wear black clothes, like to stay up late. Work as a writer.

9 Responses to “Nessie: Addressing An Old Photo”

  1. maslo63 responds:

    I don’t think this analysis can really rule out a bird completely. To properly examine the photo you have to zoom in on it to such a degree that you cannot with any confidence say what it is or isn’t. So it does not look quite like the pictures of cormorants and gulls that the writer posts, that does not mean it isn’t one of those at a strange angle. If it is not a bird…what is it? He does not offer a better explanation unfortunately.

    Just curious, does anyone honestly think the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur anymore? Science has long since shown us that plesiosaurs did not have flexible necks and could not rear their necks out of the water in the same manner that Nessie allegedly can. So I’m interested if people still buy into that explanation, one that was hypothesized before we knew what the capability of plesiosaurs were. Really the only animals I can think of with that degree of neck flexibility are…birds.

  2. cryptokellie responds:

    It occurs to me that one option for this photo is being ignored…that this image has been doctored or created. I remember seeing this photo back in the 1980s and I never thought that the Nessie image blended well with the rest of the photo. Of course my personal opinion means nothing but seeing as there is no credible photo evidence for a long-necked Nessie cryptid as most of the “evidence” for long-necked Nessies has been either disproven or at least given to be suspect to the point of unacceptablity. I Have been following the Loch Ness story since the late 1950s and I find myself becoming more and more disillusioned with the possibility of a cryptid dwelling in Loch Ness. All the famous evidence really adds up to a lot of nothing. For example;

    The Wilson Photographs…doubtful as the hoax aspect story has lessened it’s impact.

    The Gray Photograph…interesting but what the hell is it? Unrecognizable.

    The Stewart Photograph…proven to be hoaxed.

    The Macnab photos…proven to be hoaxed.

    The Rhine’s photos…only after being retouched by a magazine art department is anything recognizable. The “Gargoyle Head” image proven to be the lake bottom.

    Images from Doc Shiels and Frank Searle are better left un-discussed.

    Sonar contacts and images…inconclusive at best.

    Motion picture footage fares no better with the Dinsdale film, while having been analyized and discussed over a dozen times, it is still inconclusive.

    Eye witness testimony is just that, interesting but evidence…no.

    Add to this the fact that absolutely no physical evidence of any kind exists and you see where I’m going. For my summation I will say that, is it possible for a cryptid to exist Loch Ness, yes it is possible and I hope this to be true. Is it a plesiosaur of some kind – no. I don’t accept the long-necked aspect as well as there is no real evidence for it. As for what it could be…well it could be a lot of things but right now it is unproven, as are most cryptids – unfortunately.

  3. wuffing responds:

    Nick Redfern wrote ” Roland (the author of The Water Horses of Loch Ness) takes a look at a purported photo of a Loch Ness Monster. Moreover, it’s a photo that often fails to get the same degree of publicity and commentary as others.”

    If you read the extract from the Calgary Sunday Sun, it clearly says the Bruces themselves do not claim it is a photo of the Loch Ness monster, but insist it is not a hoax.

    So who is doing the “purporting” ? The monster believers, as usual, weaving the innocent and sincere testimony of witnesses into their own web of delusion.

  4. springheeledjack responds:

    As so many times happens on the Bigfoot front with blobsquatches, this falls into the same category, except since we’re talking about Nessie, I’d classify it as a Blobssie.

    I do agree with the assessment that it’s not a bird. While the shape is close, the scale is wrong. A bird at that distance would not appear that large without the entire being seen and it being one really large bird–larger than those suspected as a culprit.

    As to Cryptokellie’s idea–that it has been doctored, that is also a real possibility. Looking at the photo, while there does seem to be something to it intersecting with the waves, something about the object itself just looks like maybe it doesn’t belong. Not “doesn’t belong” because it’s a critter that shouldn’t be there, but because it just doesn’t quite look like it “fits” with the rest of the photo.

    Interesting though. Just another piece of the folklore for Nessie. I don’t put much stock in the pictures obtained from Ness–they’ve been haphazard, poor quality, faked or just plain goofed up. For me it’s always been the stories and the accounts. When I get there, I’ll figure it out for myself…

  5. silverity responds:

    Falling back to a hoax interpretation has too much of a “default” position to it. If people have real critical reasons based on analyses of the photo which point to a hoax they should state it.

    I also don’t need to zoom into that object to know it is not a bird. The analysis is concerned with the general outline of the object and not internal details. Zooming is not going to compromise that information.

  6. cryptokellie responds:

    I think I can speak for a lot of people who have been following the crypto world for as many years as I have (since the 1950s) that you develop a feel for photos, films and other evidence. When something just doesn’t look right…it probably isn’t. I’m not saying that this sense of evidence reality is infallible, only that if the aspect of the image or images lacks the feel of authenticity, then they most likely aren’t. Not very scientific I grant you but, it seems to work the majority of the time.

  7. skeptik responds:

    My guess is that the photographer thinks it’s a bird, as most people would. It looks like a bird. It flies like a bird. The so-called analysis does not rule out a bird. Probably is a bird. Move along.

    It wasn’t anything he saw while photographing the Loch, meaning it was probably either something flying by closer than the motif, or something on the lense itself.

  8. silverity responds:

    I despair. So some “feel” it is not right and the analysis does not “rule out” a bird. So how far does an analysis have to go to rule out a candidate? Does a bird have to look like a pretzel or something? The words “straw” and “clutch” come to mind.

  9. wuffing responds:

    The photographer was taking a snap of the castle. They only noticed the object after the film was developed. They do not claim it is Nessie, but insist it is not a fake. Surely, if they were taking a photo of the castle and Nessie popped up in front of them they would have seen it through the viewfinder and would have rattled off some more frames of it. There is no reason to doubt the photographer’s testimony, and an unnoticed bird, or even two, is the simplest and most likely explanation. No mystery here, except to ask why anyone would wish to spend their spare time exhuming such stories.W

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|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.