Loch Ness Monster hunter has new photo, he says

I don't know what to make of his picture. Something's there, but I don't see anything that says it is or isn't.

I don't either, edgar.

It seems to be a classical form of perceptual sensitivity.
When one someone is too caught up in something that they're interested in for some time, the brain makes credible lies to the eyes or ears, and suddenly it seems like the thing you’re interested in is being apparent to you in reality. Coincidence? I think not, since we know this man's "hobby."

That photo quality is off putting, at least to myself. People carry phones and iPads that can reveal every pore and blemish on a face, yet a guy seriously looking for Nessie, and with his own boat, can't come up with anything better than that.

Maybe there's something in the nature of the beast that makes it hard to get a decent picture.

Or maybe there ain't no such beast.

That has crossed my mind.

Forget it - the monsters (!!!) are there, at least during the silly season!


Source: Scottish Daily Record 04.08.2012

And that's the proof!

Ya know, when our Animas River flooded some years ago, you would occasionally see tires rolling down the river. I mean, they were on end, just as they were when on a car, and they were rolling. Sometimes they would pop up and resubmerge after disappearing for a dozen or so yards. You had to look close to see they weren't Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpant

I believe Nessie is real, she works down at the Flamingo resort every Sunday, she’s one big drag queen.

Thirty years, major advances in photography and video, and this is the best he's got? I'm not impressed. If the creature existed it would have its own reality show by now.

The Flamingo, that's perfect.

Thing is, I really want to believe in the existence of some prehistoric life form which somehow escaped extinction and survived in isolation in some such places as Loch Ness or Lake Champlain (between the state of Vermont and New York) which claims its own 'Champie'. But there is absolutely no credible evidence for it, just anecdotal horse-manure, like that unlikely photo. Sad.

Even if a photo was nice and clear, photographic evidence to a 3rd party is difficult for others to believe these days, with the possibility of image editing, etc.

I've seen some real good stuff that is very compelling.

In addition, if this guy was at all serious about getting a good shot of it, he should have had a good telephoto lens.

I've bee at Loch Ness a couple of times ages ago. It was misty/foggy every time, I've been, couldnt take pictures.
But my friends and I clearly saw Nessie and family ... the more of Loch Ness Single Highland Malt Whisky we had had the night before, the more we saw!

Doesn't surprise me a bit, Walter. I've seen the damndest things while sipping Glenlivet and such.

I say... "not good enough".

The other day I saw a story about a lady who claimed she saw a wild cougar in New Hampshire. She even had a video of the thing. It was definitely feline but it was hidden behind some leaves and trees and there was no really clear view.

This lady is only trying to prove that she saw a wild cougar, not a mysterious monster in a lake. And she had video sufficient to identify the genus if not the species, and *still* it wasn't good enough.

Then we have this guy in Scotland who takes a low quality snapshot of a lump in a lake and claims he's got proof of Nessie.

I think some people need to rethink what their idea of "proof" is. And CGI being what it is today, I'm not even sure a good high-quality photo is going to go very far.

I've seen a lot of things in the water that look pretty weird, until you get right up close and find out it's just a big chunk of garbage floating around.

Odd they never get a clear shot. If I spent years searching, I would have the best camera and a fast boat to get me there immediately as I took the picture. Something. I admit to having no expertise hunting monsters.

Looks to me like a seal.