I have always wondered how come these folks tend to ONLY get photos of the "humps" or the back of these things? Just wondering that all. Kinda odd though that someone can take a photo of what looks like the back or hump of one of these things then go on and state its Loch Ness herself.

If I saw Nessie I'd be inclined to say nothing. If I snapped Nessie I'd also be inclined to sit on my hands. Why? Simply because of all of the doubt and dissent certain to come my way. The fact is we talk ourselves into doubt and shooting holes into everything, to the point we are certain we have come upon the answer and have exposed a fake, fraud or hoax.

And why not. History is full of those that have tried to pull one over our eyes. Add to that arrogance, the arrogance of authority and science, and what you end up with is a process that demands doubt from any of us.

Going back to my original thoughts on the matter, I have to wonder why somebody would submit a sighting or picture given the doubt and dissent surely to follow. Even more to the point, why they'd submit personal information, further opening themselves to ridicule.

Are we to believe that the reporting was 100% professional and not given to any degree of doubt or sarcasm? Are we to assume the were mitigating factors behind the report such as an agenda, drink or perhaps just a desire to see something always searched for but after decades never seen? Did the camera lie?

I'll close it with this; the shot looks damned compelling and given the legends surrounding Loch Ness, the fact that if it would fool one it would fool many, why didn't other reports or similar pictures pop up? I mean, if it was a log, wouldn't it have been carried by the current for others to see in a similar, "compelling" state? Hard to believe that such a log would merely pop-up and pose for a single compelling shot, then suddenly sink to the bottom again. But hey, that's just me.

Maybe there's something more to Loch Ness than what we can fathom at this point, it possibly defies science and our arrogance to control perception and calculation, and those that see it are damned by the rest of us, picture and willingness to fess up notwithstanding.

My 2 cents on this...

While I want to believe that this is a real picture of Nessie, i'm not too convinced. Looking at the object in the water, it's not casting a shadow/reflection on the water. Now looking at the ripples on the water suggests the sun to be in front of the photographer, or at least the motion of the water, according to the shadow/reflection of the ripples, is coming toward the photographer. The object in question casts nothing. This either suggests (to me) that the light source is directly overhead, or its been added in after the fact.

Hopefully this made some kind of sense lol!

Everyone who lives local knows its just a tourist thing, nothing more.
Nice fairy story.

Yeah, sure.


How many times has the loch been scanned or surveyed, nothing found, oh that just makes it more mysterious. (or not there)