Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nessie hunter snaps 'monster' after 26 year wait

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by isyeye
 


I'm guessing from what is shown, 5-7 feet(ish).

Not very large. I agree.

That's the problem with these photos of "Nessie". They never are very definitive.
edit on 3-8-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


If you look at the first shot which shows the castle off in the distance and the distance away from the object in question the size of the object becomes much more clear. And it's hugh!

As to the other posters question, I'm more curious as to where the photog was when he snapped the shot.
edit on 4-8-2012 by twohawks because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 

Looks more like a salmon,still I suppose it's time for Nessie to make an "appearance" to lure more gullible tourists to the Highlands!



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Nessie would have to be small as there isn't a whole lot in the loch for a monster to live off of. there wouldn't be enough fish.


I think you should learn more about Loch Ness before commenting, it is a very huge (for the uk) body of water, it is over 22 miles long and over a mile wide in most parts, it is 230 meters deep (That is 755 feet.) In fact Loch Ness holds more fresh water than ALL of the lakes in in England and Wales combined. to say it could not support a fish eating creature is ridiculous.

The photograph is deceptive, and many who have visited the lake or lucky enough to live by it will know that although the surface in the photo does appear to be quite still, those ripples around it will be at least 12 - 18 inches high and I would estimate this creature (whatever is in the photo) to be about 8 - 12 feet long so not a carp (Giant carp are not found in loch Ness anyway) could be a seal I suppose, I never saw seals when I was there but that is not to say they never visit the Loch, however seals tend to keep their body under water and just their head pops up and this seems to have an arched back, not typical of a seal.

I have actually met George Edwards, yes he really does believe in Nessie, however nothing he ever said or did would make me think for one second he would fake a photo, he is all for scientific exploration, his burning curiosity is to know what Nessie is, not to convince others she exists. If he is saying he got a photo of something on the Loch, I tend to believe him



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam







Nessie hunter snaps 'monster' after 26 year wait

'Nessie' hunter George Edwards waited 26 years for this moment – and he now believes he has the best picture ever taken of the Loch Ness monster.

He spends his life on the loch – around 60 hours a week - taking tourists out on his boat, Nessie Hunter IV, and has led numerous Nessie hunts over the years.

...

"It was slowly moving up the loch towards Urquhart Castle and it was a dark grey colour. It was quite a fair way from the boat, probably about half a mile away but it’s difficult to tell in water.”

After watching the object for five to ten minutes, Mr Edwards said it slowly sank below the surface and never resurfaced."



And this describes the trouble I am having with this picture...I want to know what SIZE is the boat? If that object is a HALF MILE AWAY, then it is FREAKING HUGE! Or else, it is all just a bunch of HOAKUM! There is ZERO chance that object is a half mile away if it was taken from a boat (unless of course the boat has a mast that is VERY TALL! Look at the angle...


The article continues:




Before releasing it publicly he sent it to the USA for analysis, though he can’t reveal further details.

“I did not want to mention my sighting until I was sure that I had not photographed a log or something inanimate in the water in the water,” he said. “I have friends in the USA who have friends in the military.

“They had my photo analysed and they have no doubt that I photographed an animate object in the water. I was really excited as I am sure that some strange creatures are lurking in the depths of Loch Ness.”


I like that it appears he made an effort to authenticate the photo. Of course, it is not clear just how yet or to what avail.

It will be interesting to see what others make of this.

edit on 3-8-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


I would think "an effort to authenticate the photo," would consist of sending the photo to PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERTS, not some guys in the military...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
This could be anything lol.

26 years wasted



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by daynight42
Part of me wishes they would just drain the lake somehow and put an end to all this. The MS river could use some water. Too bad there is no money in building a pipeline to channel a material other than oil.


You must be American, nobody else would come out with such an ignorant and arrogant statement as this! Seriously? Drain Loch Ness to give the water to the MS river? HA! Aye coz we'd let you just come in and drain the Loch for your own ends! The idiocy around here sometimes is astounding!

I don't know what to make of this pic, it doesn't stir up the feeling that the 'Surgeon Photo' does or even the underwater pic of the 'flipper'. I believe Nessie's real, there are so many caves and tunnels in the depths of the loch that she could be anywhere.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I found a picture of the guy in his boat but its just a bit little of a
picture to tell the size of his boat.
He looks sincere (ha ha).
I would post it but it won't let me because of copy right.
so heres the link.


The boat



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I thought the originator of Nessie admitted it was a hoax?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Its a nice picture but clearly not very big and quite close to the camera no matter what is said, to be honest it looks like a large bream or similar fish coming up to the surface after insects or such.

The most interesting photo I ever saw of Nessie was the one that was on the Evening Standard all those years when they did the first real big scan of the Loch and they caught what was classed as the prehistoric looking flipper in the dark water.

I think most thought it was a bit of old tree that had caught up in the underwater camera.

I seem to also remember there were sizeable sonar scans which were classed as schools of fish.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Say, you don't think it could be this plastic monster floating in the calm, morning waters taken from a few yards away, do ya?



(img846.imageshack.us...)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


Maybe ole Nessie had a baby. If there is something inhabiting the lake, coupled with the time frame of sighting reports, you have to think there cannot be only one. If there was only a single animal, fish, whale or anything it may be long dead along with any evidence.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Hudson69
reply to post by loam
 


26 years for that lousy photo....what a waste of a life



If this was his passion and/or mission, I think it paid off handsomely and he must feel vindicated (even if it does turn out to be a floating log
)

Handsomely for that photo?
There is nothing in that photo. See this all the time on this site and drives me crazy. At first glance it appears to at least be touched up. At second glance it appears not to be a giant sea monster of some kind.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
So that must be Nessy Junior or something considering how old the story is. Its entierly possible that in that isolted ecosystem some kind of unique animal spawned, however kinda unlikely.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Thats a new one. Looks like the tip of a submarine coming to surface... Obviously nessie just doesn't like humans and thinks we suck.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Hudson69
reply to post by loam
 


26 years for that lousy photo....what a waste of a life



If this was his passion and/or mission, I think it paid off handsomely and he must feel vindicated (even if it does turn out to be a floating log
)


How can he be vindicated if its a log !



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by loam
 


The other question I have is where are the rest of the pictures? I would have been snapping them like a madman. If there was a sequence of pictures showing movement, it would at least give it a little more of a possibility.
edit on 3-8-2012 by isyeye because: (no reason given)


My first response. 20+ years waiting, got 10 minutes and only 2 pics, and merely an enlargement ?
Come on, I took at least 4 pics before I got my son smile.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Its the summer holidays here in the uk, they need more people to visit, and do this pretty much every single year.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


OMG look at that castle in the back. I want nothing more than to go see some of those castles.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mudshark
 


Yes, I do believe that is a highly likely explanation.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


he waited 26 years to take this one photo?
is this the only photo in the set?

if you are an experienced photographer you would b ready to snap 10 pics in 10 seconds and most likely have a video camera ready.

maybe after 26 years he was like fahq, im sick of this waiting im going to make it happen.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join