UFOs Spotted Above Loch Ness

This thread is a classic example of why UFO "believers" are their own worst enemy. It's quite obvious to me that these "UFOs" are a double reflection of a lamp, due to the picture being taken through a win dow. We can argue back and forth all day, but the additional reflections at the bottom right of the photo are damning evidence that this is indeed the case. This is NOT convincing evidence of unidentified flying objects.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence in this little saga doesn't even come close to "ordinary" status. As far as I am concerned, it's CASE CLOSED.

EDIT: Why the hell is the word "win dow" (space inserted because of the bizarre reluctance of this site to accept it in my post) not allowed???

a reply to: Mogget

Well, thanks for stopping by!

I never claimed it to be a UFO. Just shows that you didn't really read all of what I wrote, at least.

It could be a reflection. Could be lights/camera/action/location/weather/flare watchamacallit thingy.
Could be anything. I don't know.

It's just not the reading lamp reflection for me.

a reply to: aynock

I have teased as much detail out of the picture that I can and I concede, there are lines that would suggest a reflection



I still don't come out totally convinced that the anomaly is a reflection though. The camera would have to be close to the window because no frames are in view, that would make it difficult for the lens to resolve a reflection in such sharp detail.

I guess the argument is, why say it was outside when It strongly appears to be shot inside. Dunno, would have liked to have believed them.

a reply to: kennyb72

I still don't come out totally convinced that the anomaly is a reflection though. The camera would have to be close to the window because no frames are in view, that would make it difficult for the lens to resolve a reflection in such sharp detail.

if the camera has passive autofocus i'd expect it to try to focus on the reflection at the centre of the image - not sure what type of camera was used though

i'd bet the exif data shows the focal distance for the shot to be less than 10m - i'd also bet that the lamp was a similar distance from the window as the focal distance of the shot

I guess the argument is, why say it was outside when It strongly appears to be shot inside. Dunno, would have liked to have believed them.

sometimes people make mistakes - some people like to pull other people's leg

if you think it's worth it try and find out the model of camera used and the exif data for the pic

i'm happy it's a reflection

a reply to: aynock

if you think it's worth it try and find out the model of camera used and the exif data for the pic

I gave it a shot! If I find out anything, I will post it here!

We still don't know if it's double paned glass. And...

The lamp has a bulb that emits a bright light from the upper portion. The objects in the original photo appear to have a flat top which is darker than the rim. There is what appears to be a mouth-like feature. There are also six additional objects. None of these features correspond with the lamp. No one seems to have an explanation for these discrepancies. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how it may be some sort of optical illusion created by the lamp, and I can't.

I can't believe I'm the first one to just now consider that it could be a straight-up hoax. It could very well have been photoshopped. Or maybe a photo/paper stuck to the window? I'm particularly interested in this case given the history of weirdness surrounding Loch Ness. But let's all be real here, assuming we do rule out the lamp reflection - what are we left with? It still doesn't prove that the objects are some sort of ultraterrestrial craft or whatever. Feeling like a frustrated, broken record!

a reply to: ultimafule

oh, ultimafule, don't be frustrated! Here, lemme give you a hug *hug*

I'm sure if it was photoshopped, megabunk or our own photo experts here would have told us a long time ago!

A deliberate hoax? Doubt it. If so, it's only bad karma for them!

We may never know, but it sure is fun trying to find out!

smile!

a reply to: justbe

Thanks justbe!

Honestly don't think Metabunk ever considered deliberate hoax. He saw the curtain reflection, assumed double paned glass and came to lamp reflection. Case closed as far as he's concerned. No need to pursue alternate theories. Most folks in this thread seem to have bought into that theory without question as well.

What this case needs is something more from the photographer. She didn't see anything, hasn't come in contact with any other weirdness during her stay - nothing. All we have is this mysterious (at the moment) image.

Agreed, it is fun trying to figure out what it is or isn't though.

originally posted by: ultimafule
Honestly don't think Metabunk ever considered deliberate hoax. He saw the curtain reflection, assumed double paned glass and came to lamp reflection. Case closed as far as he's concerned. No need to pursue alternate theories. Most folks in this thread seem to have bought into that theory without question as well.

Okay, well, maybe that's bad. But where is the additional data to be found that would allow continued exploration of other theories? Without the data, we can hypothesize about angels and leprechauns from now till the cows come home.

But there ain't any more data. What is there to do?

Exactly, hence the frustration I voiced in a previous post. I know nothing about digital photo analysis. I guess there's nothing that can be done to the original to determine whether it's solid/three-dimensional or post-production after effects?

I think a confirmation on whether the window is double paned would be a big help, although I obviously have issues with the lamp theory at the moment due to the discrepancies I've posted in nearly every post in this thread that have STILL gone unaddressed, but even then, as we both have stated, what does that prove? Only what it isn't. It still doesn't prove the objects are inter-dimensional manta rays or whatever.

originally posted by: ultimafule
I know nothing about digital photo analysis.

So maybe you shouldn't be presenting an opinion?

I guess there's nothing that can be done to the original to determine whether it's solid/three-dimensional or post-production after effects?.

Inter dimensional photography? how does that work? I'm curious!

although I obviously have issues with the lamp theory at the moment due to the discrepancies

a reply to: MarsIsRed

I didn't present an opinion. It was a statement of fact and an (albeit, subtle) appeal to others reading this this thread who may be familiar with digital analysis.

Regarding your statement about "inter dimensional photography" (LOL): I have seen photo analysis done which seems to be able to show whether an object actually exists in the photograph as a three-dimensional object or a two-dimensional CGI/cardboard cut-out or what have you. You do know that we live in world we experience as having three dimensions of length, width and height? Perhaps you should be the one not presenting opinions.

EDIT: Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by digital photo analysis. I'm referring to the use of specialized software in order to analyze photographs - not using my eyes and critical thinking to analyze a photograph in digital media.

a reply to: justbe

There are lots of weird sightings going on around that area by people at the moment , people who do not believe in little green men from the planet zog or where ever but have noticed things that do not add up .

If only they had a decent camera to capture what they saw on 2 occasions lately late at night , instead of thinking to themselves nu it can't be and telling themselves not to be stupid

Well, thanks for stopping by! I never claimed it to be a UFO. Just shows that you didn't really read all of what I wrote, at least.

I never quoted any of your comments, so why have you assumed that I was responding to you personally? I was stating my own opinion of this case (which....for the record....I am free to do, so sarcastic comments suggesting otherwise are not welcome).

originally posted by: ultimafule
We still don't know if it's double paned glass.

We do now - see the latest comment on the Metabunk link. The cottage owner was contacted and confirmed they are double glazed, just as they appear to be in the photos.

originally posted by: Mogget

Well, thanks for stopping by! I never claimed it to be a UFO. Just shows that you didn't really read all of what I wrote, at least.

I never quoted any of your comments, so why have you assumed that I was responding to you personally? I was stating my own opinion of this case (which....for the record....I am free to do, so sarcastic comments suggesting otherwise are not welcome).

Of course your opinion is welcome, that's what this is for, right?
I was not being sarcastic. Hard to tell I realize now. You dont know me, so you wouldnt know how I meant that.
I guess, I assume you meant me personally because I started this thread. But now I see, you were just talking generally. However, I dont think anybody in this thread ever claimed this was a UFO for sure.

No hard feelings Thank you for your comment!

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: justbe

There are lots of weird sightings going on around that area by people at the moment , people who do not believe in little green men from the planet zog or where ever but have noticed things that do not add up .

If only they had a decent camera to capture what they saw on 2 occasions lately late at night , instead of thinking to themselves nu it can't be and telling themselves not to be stupid

Interesting! Sounds like you are near there? Are you the one who's seen stuff?
Hopefully somebody will catch something sometime..

No hard feelings, justbe. I appreciate that you are trying to stay open minded about this one. It can be so difficult to do that with the UFO subject! My own personal feeling is that we waste too much time on photos/reports that will never really provide us with any useful evidence. Whilst it's just possible that I may be jumping the start gun with this case, my heart tells me that there is nothing unidentified here, and that we should be concentrating on cases that seem to be a lot more "watertight"!

a reply to: Mogget

I agree! It's very difficult as it is, even with much better evidence.
This is at a dead end, I'm afraid. There's just really not much more to find out about it.
The only thing that could help, is if somebody else takes another picture of the same kind at the same location.
I won't be holding my breath though

..and the owner of the cottage has taken corroborating photos (and even a video) that show conclusively that it is a reflection of one of the lamps.

www.metabunk.org...

and I would even go so far as to suggest that the people who made the claim knew full well that that was the case.


Edit: the page has now been re-written:

www.metabunk.org...