Is this the Loch Ness monster?

originally posted by: howmuch4another
why stop at one pic? hmmmm

You bring up a good point. If the article is accurate and the photagrapher was there with a camera setup, why no comparison shots? If it's snapping photos through out the day, lets see some of the entire shoot. That would be one way to legitimize this pic.

Gonna take a look at the exif data now.

Looks like an elephant crossing a river so I doubt it is lake Windermere , not many wild elephants in England.

originally posted by: AnonyMason

originally posted by: howmuch4another
why stop at one pic? hmmmm

You bring up a good point. If the article is accurate and the photagrapher was there with a camera setup, why no comparison shots? If it's snapping photos through out the day, lets see some of the entire shoot. That would be one way to legitimize this pic.

Gonna take a look at the exif data now.

Sounds to me like it was part of a time lapse sequence to show changing fall colors. If that's the case, the animal may have been gone by the next frame and not there yet in the previous frame...Just my take on it.

originally posted by: proob4
I like how they felt the need to circle it. Really?

I was thinking the same...never would have seen the giant dinosaur without the big red circle...

Peace

You know, I'm not sure if this isn't a bit of a wind up. After doing a bit of searching, there was a joke tweet posted on Twitter yesterday afternoon saying:

'If Scotland votes YES, the Loch Ness monster will move to Lake Windermere.'

Link to Tweet on Twitter.

And then this story comes out today.

And according to the Mail, it was a bloke photographer, not a woman. LOL

Mail's version of the story.

this is a hoax. The exif data has been scrubbed.

From my terminal: $ exif Loch-Ness-monster-found-in-England.jpg
Corrupt data
The data provided does not follow the specification.
ExifLoader: The data supplied does not seem to contain EXIF data.


^^^ HOAX

Interesting that they credit the picture in the article as the original picture, but it's not possible to extract the EXIF data. Yeah, that's a good sign.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Was just going to check for that. Good observation. Coming from a graphic design background, this does not look real at all.

a reply to: Droogie

Bingo.

2

Exif data can be turned off in photoshop and if the image were fed through HDRI software the exif would be gone also.

originally posted by: minkmouse
Exif data can be turned off in photoshop and if the image were fed through HDRI software the exif would be gone also.

Which is preciesley why(in my opinion) this is hoaxed. If you post the raw image, there is no need to run it through photoshop or HDRi. Both of which are proprietary software. Both are able to modify the raw data.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Can't post a RAW image...has to be jpg.

a reply to: minkmouse

A .jpg format would not scrub the data. Metadata from images is stored in .jpeg or tiff. This is standard. Digital cameras embed metadata into every image. This image has none. = hoax

Something like this.

Location Lake District National Park
Coordinates 54°21′30″N 2°56′10″WCoordinates: 54°21′30″N 2°56′10″W
Type Ribbon Mere
Primary inflows Brathay, Rothay, Trout Beck, Cunsey Beck
Primary outflows River Leven
Basin countries United Kingdom
Max. length 18.08 kilometres (11.23 mi)
Max. width 1.49 kilometres (0.93 mi)
Surface area 14.73 square kilometres (5.69 sq mi) or 1,473 hectares (3,640 acres)
Max. depth 66.76 metres (219.0 ft)
Surface elevation 39 metres (128 ft)

Source Wikipedia

219 feet deep, Its deep enough.

Oh its definitely real. We have it. Proof. Undeniable. Could not possibly by "CGI" whoever that is.

I'm relieved all the debunkers can crawl back under the toaster and eat bagel crumbs and lay their eggs as they normally do when not on ATS.

a reply to: Hellas

Fake.

Better Together will be all over this tomorrow though. How can an independent Scotland possibly protect itself against a threat such as a most likely fake monster such as this!!?

I was going to vote "yes" but i think i'll need to hear a plan b on the Nessie protection and control policy now.

a reply to: AnonyMason


It would scrub the data if i told it to or if it passed through HDRI software that's the point. Many images I view on a daily bases have exif stripped and it pisses me off because I always like to know settings and gear used. These stripped images are all jpg's.

A few things throw up concern for me:

1. If this was a snapshot of a creature having just risen out of the water or was moving or whatever, there would be SOME sort of disturbance(s) in the water surrounding it. The way the water is in the image is how it would appear if it had been there for some time.

2. The object itself just looks way too fake. I work with photoshop everyday, and I promise you that I could create a more convincing image without much hassle.

3. If this was taken to capture the changing colors of the season, she seems to have been a bit premature, as everything looks green to me. Even the story sounds fake and isn't supported by the image.

Too bad...would be cool if it were real, but, alas...

I'm by no means a photoshop or photo manipulation expert but this looks so obviously fake, it's ridiculous.