Loch Ness

[Diane]

Hey,
Just saw a new story about the famous Loch Ness monster. Apparently a local sailer who has been hunting Nessie for years took a recent photo of her. Not sure why everyone thinks she is female. I mean, come on, how would you know without looking????? Anyway, he does make his living mostly with tourists taking them out on the water to hopefully see "her" so his account could be suspect. He does have a weird accent. Just wondering what everyone thinks. Wasn't sure where to post this. Pets, nature maybe!!!!

[sandyc]

Re: Loch Ness

Hi Diane,
every year around now there does seem to be a 'sighting'. Could it be that this is the tourist season in full swing? How cynical of me~~~~
I have not heard the gentleman speaking but he does, as you say, make a living from taking out tourists on the loch.

Just a wee bit of "advertising" perhaps.
I have kayaked the length of Loch Ness and the water is very "peaty" so you cannot see anything even only a few inches down. Most of the sightings seem to be around Urquhart Castle and I can tell you that there is quite a current coming out of the bay so perhaps the 'creature' is nothing more than a tree stump being washed into the Loch itself.
That is the mystery~~
Sandy

[Ranald]

Re: Loch Ness

Sandy, did you see the following on You Tube just now?

If, as stated below, there were single camera shots taken, where and when was the vidio recorded?
Ranald

The following is from You Tube Thursday 16 August 2012 19:13 UK time

Published on 3 Aug 2012 by allmediaa

(the following is from below the video)

George Edwards, a Scottish skipper who spent decades searching for the beast said to inhabit Loch Ness, claims to have finally spotted his elusive quarry and gotten what he calls photographic proof of the monster.
On Nov. 2, 2011, Edwards photographed what appears to be a single hump in the water from the deck of his boat, "Nessie Hunter." Edwards said that "It was slowly moving up the loch towards Urquhart Castle and it was a dark grey color. It was quite a fair way from the boat, probably about half a mile away but it's difficult to tell in water," according to the Daily Mail, which has has posted Edwards photo. He watched the object for five to ten minutes before it slowly sank and did not resurface.
Edwards said he waited to release the photograph until after unnamed experts had examined it. Oddly, he is quoted in the Daily Mail as having had the photograph "independently verified by a team of US military monster experts." In fact, the United States military does not have a team of "monster experts" that it dispatches to investigate huge, unknown creatures around the world. Nor, for that matter, is it clear what "verifying" his photo would mean other than suggesting it was likely a real (i.e., not digitally faked) image of something in the water — though what that "something" might be is, of course, the relevant question. The shape could theoretically be anything from a fish to a floating log to a lake monster.
Edwards' description of his sighting raises more questions than it answers. For example, if he had the object in sight for five to 10 minutes, why is there (apparently) only one photograph of it? That's enough time to capture dozens or hundreds of photographs. And though the unknown object seems large, there's no way to determine its size since we don't know the exact distance to the object (though he's quoted as saying it was a half-mile away), and there's nothing of scale nearby to help judge. Depending on how close it is to the camera, it could be 5 feet long or 50 feet long.
A watery clue to the mystery?
There are many unknowns, but if Edwards' account is accurate, it may provide an important clue as to the "monster's" identity. Other mysterious objects floating in lakes have been known to behave exactly as Edwards described — for example, the most famous sighting of "Champ," the monster said to live in Vermont's Lake Champlain. A woman named Sandra Mansi sighted and photographed "Champ," resulting in what was called the "best photo" of the monster, and indeed of any lake monster anywhere. [Our 10 Favorite Monsters]
That dark, humped "creature" was later revealed to almost certainly be a submerged tree trunk brought to the surface by buoyant gases created during decomposition. It rose to the surface, floated for about five to 10 minutes (during which time it looked exactly like a monstrous hump), then sank back down into the cold water never to be seen again. It is a well-established phenomenon that can — and has — created false lake monster sightings and photographs.
The floating log hypothesis also explains why these images are unusually good: Unlike an animal or wave that appears for mere seconds and creates blurry images, a log remains stationary for minutes, allowing for sharper, clearer photographs. Then they sink back down to the lake floor never to be seen again, having created a monstrous, mysterious "best ever" photograph.
The solution to one famous "best ever" lake monster sighting and photo does not necessarily solve another "best ever" sighting and photo, though Lake Champlain and Loch Ness have many similar characteristics (including wooded shorelines). The similarities are striking, and there's good reason to suspect the same natural hydrologic phenomenon was responsible for both monster photographs.
There is of course a strong economic incentive to promote monsters like Nessie: tourism. Loch Ness is the main tourist draw in the Scottish highlands, and Edwards makes his living guiding visitors who come from all over the world hoping for a glimpse of the famous monster. No one has suggested that Edwards faked the photo, but it's fair to point out that if an ambiguous shape is seen in the waters of Ness, the monster interpretation is far more likely to be accepted than a mundane explanation. If it's a fish or floating log, it's a non-story; if it's a possible "best evidence" of Nessie, it's international news.
The Loch Ness monster first jumped into international notoriety in the 1930s after a photo was widely published showing a serpentine head and neck. That image, taken by a London surgeon named Kenneth Wilson, was touted as the best evidence for Nessie — until it was admitted to be a hoax decades later.

[1938 Observer]

Re: Loch Ness

Hey,
Just saw a new story about the famous Loch Ness monster. Apparently a local sailer who has been hunting Nessie for years took a recent photo of her. Not sure why everyone thinks she is female. I mean, come on, how would you know without looking????? Anyway, he does make his living mostly with tourists taking them out on the water to hopefully see "her" so his account could be suspect. He does have a weird accent. Just wondering what everyone thinks. Wasn't sure where to post this. Pets, nature maybe!!!!

Hi Diane,

"Nessie" would definitely have to be a female...:blush::rolleyes:...Only a woman could cause countless decades of confusion and gossip ........................... and, after all those years, we still don't know what she is thinking.

Gordon. :redrose: