|
|
| Author |
Message |
llanarth
|
|
Loch Ness, a Legend or True?
| 
Nov 22 23:52 UTC 1995 |
There's been plenty of stories about the Loch Ness Monster (nessie).. what do
you all believe? what do you think Nessie is? is it a Pleizeosaur? (sp?), is it
large eels?, is it odd-finned fish?, is it otters? what do you think it is?..
|
| 38 responses total. |
orinoco
|
|
response 1 of 38:
|
Nov 23 04:11 UTC 1995 |
Interesting that all the pictures of it that exist are fuzzy, badly
focused, and black-and-white........
|
eldrich
|
|
response 2 of 38:
|
Nov 23 15:15 UTC 1995 |
Does anyone other than me know about chessie?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 3 of 38:
|
Nov 23 19:12 UTC 1995 |
Chessie?
|
llanarth
|
|
response 4 of 38:
|
Nov 24 17:51 UTC 1995 |
tru orinoco.. but.. oh i dunno..
|
eldrich
|
|
response 5 of 38:
|
Nov 24 21:24 UTC 1995 |
Oh, too bad. Chessie=the Chesapeake bay monster oh uninlightened ones.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 6 of 38:
|
Nov 25 15:18 UTC 1995 |
Ah...excuse me for not living in virginia...=)...tell us more
|
kain
|
|
response 7 of 38:
|
Nov 28 02:55 UTC 1995 |
yup and all the photo's which exist of the nessie are fuzzy and I believe to
be fakes
|
orinoco
|
|
response 8 of 38:
|
Nov 29 22:28 UTC 1995 |
not necessarily kain...it just makes it hard to tell either way
|
eldrich
|
|
response 9 of 38:
|
Nov 30 20:55 UTC 1995 |
<Eldrich thinks they look like little ducks...>
|
hoagy
|
|
response 10 of 38:
|
Dec 1 08:20 UTC 1995 |
(Little ducks or flippers of sea creatures)
It's amazing how clear a picture of a speeding car can be,
or a fire. But when they go for nessie, a ufo, or a ghost,
someone can't hold the camera still.
|
kain
|
|
response 11 of 38:
|
Dec 1 23:22 UTC 1995 |
you got that right
|
orinoco
|
|
response 12 of 38:
|
Dec 2 16:07 UTC 1995 |
of course, the "true believer" might think that the aura of a ufo, ghost,
or fire only lets them be photographed in bad focus
|
eldrich
|
|
response 13 of 38:
|
Dec 3 17:02 UTC 1995 |
Well, loch ness is kinda foggy I guess.....
|
orinoco
|
|
response 14 of 38:
|
Dec 5 19:50 UTC 1995 |
and all the scenery there is black and white...
|
eldrich
|
|
response 15 of 38:
|
Dec 6 20:52 UTC 1995 |
Well, if your using a black and white camera there's not much you do about it!
|
hoagy
|
|
response 16 of 38:
|
Dec 7 09:49 UTC 1995 |
Hell, they've got *color* film in camcorders nowadays,
and we've got better equipment than we had way back when, yet
these "sightings" are always blurry and out of focus, no matter
what. Z'matter, these people all have the DT's r what?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 17 of 38:
|
Dec 7 18:57 UTC 1995 |
...:)...
It is amazing, though, that no evidence of nessie has been found in an era
when it should be so easy to discover.
|
hoagy
|
|
response 18 of 38:
|
Dec 8 09:17 UTC 1995 |
Here's something I like : A few years ago, while in a moving
car, my wife was filming on our camcorder. We saw the Fuji blimp
(Remember that back in '93?) We managed to keep it in FOCUS for
over ONE MINUTE in a MOVING car. We made phallic references to it,
blah blah blah.
How is it, then, that people who are STANDING PERFECTLY STILL
with a camcorder cannot keep a focus on an alleged UFO or the
Loch Ness Monster?
(a) The DT's
(b) They're just so nervous and excited that they couldn't possibly
hold that camera still. Oh, yeah, they weren't in shock or
panicking, either, yet they were "nervous and excited".
(If you saw a UFO, wouldn't you be a BIT nervous and wonder "Hey, are
they coming in peace or to fry our asses?" You would, and you'd
start to panic. You wouldn't be just "excited". Being "excited"
doesn't cause you to lose the ability to keep a level head or
level camcorder hand, for that matter.)
(c) 'cause it's a hoax
I tend to go with "c"
|
eldrich
|
|
response 19 of 38:
|
Dec 8 20:44 UTC 1995 |
I think that it's very likly that it's none of the above. I don't have much
exsperience with camcorders but I know whenever I try to use one I can't hold
the damn thing still!
|
orinoco
|
|
response 20 of 38:
|
Dec 8 21:38 UTC 1995 |
there's a difference between holding it perfectly still and shaking it so
much that it's impossible to see the subject clearly
|
eldrich
|
|
response 21 of 38:
|
Dec 9 19:01 UTC 1995 |
Still, we're only human.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 22 of 38:
|
Dec 9 22:50 UTC 1995 |
From my experience, I would say that the "classic" pictures of nessie, most
flying saucers, etc are blurred from extreme enlargement. This not only makes
it grainy, but shows the movement blur which is usually there at a microscopic
level. (Doesn't make the pictures more believable, but may explain why they
all have that same appearance.)
Most cameras before 1960 shot at 1/125th of a second which guaranteed some
degree of blur, but they used large negatives which minimized the effect of
the movement.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 23 of 38:
|
Dec 10 01:15 UTC 1995 |
Mcpoz...how much would you have to enlarge a picture to get that degree of
blur and graininess?
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 24 of 38:
|
Dec 10 02:25 UTC 1995 |
Almost any hand held photo with slower shutter speeds would show it at about
8x10. I would imagine if you had a standard 4x6 photograph and wanted to
enlarge a portion about the size of a postage stamp, you would have that
effect from almost all snapshot cameras hand held.
|