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.

Interesting that all the pictures of it that exist are fuzzy, badly
focused, and black-and-white........

Does anyone other than me know about chessie?

Chessie?

tru orinoco.. but.. oh i dunno..

Oh, too bad. Chessie=the Chesapeake bay monster oh uninlightened ones.

Ah...excuse me for not living in virginia...=)...tell us more

yup and all the photo's which exist of the nessie are fuzzy and I believe to
be fakes

not necessarily kain...it just makes it hard to tell either way

<Eldrich thinks they look like little ducks...>

        (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.

you got that right

of course, the "true believer" might think that the aura of a ufo, ghost,
or fire only lets them be photographed in bad focus

Well, loch ness is kinda foggy I guess.....

and all the scenery there is black and white...

Well, if your using a black and white camera there's not much you do about it!

        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?

...:)...
It is amazing, though, that no evidence of nessie has been found in an era
when it should be so easy to discover.

        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"

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!

there's a difference between holding it perfectly still and shaking it so
much that it's impossible to see the subject clearly

Still, we're only human.

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.

Mcpoz...how much would you have to enlarge a picture to get that degree of 
blur and graininess?

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.

        Yes, the more you magnify a picture, the more grainy and
blurred it gets.  That's not the subject of debate.  What is the
subject is no one who shoots a camcorder picture or regular picture
of "nessie" or a U.F.O. can hold a camera steady.  Even while standing
in the middle of the sidewalk, or their backyard, the cameras
are moving about, whirling and spinning.  These people cannot
keep a steady shot, but if asked to take pictures of naked people,
hell, we'd get the clearest shots you've ever seen.  
        I can't accept that they were in a hurry to get a picture.
GEt more than one.  Human nature?  Doubtful.  If someone is
so overwhelmed, they doubtless would even be able to have the presence
of mind to swoop up a camera and snap a few pictures.
        Either these people are very excited, bordering the babbling
idiot stage of the UFO or Nessie, or they're good ways to cover
up a hoax.

You are probably right - if they are setting up a hoax they do not want it
to be crisp and clear.  On the other hand, are the video shots electronically
cropped and magnified?  I don't remember seeing any video shots, but that is
possible.

The only video shots I've seen of UFOs (I've never seen any video shots of 
Nessie) are at night and you can only see the lights, but they seamed crisp and
clear. Lights- That's another thing that doesn't make sense to me. If you are
visiting a alien planet and don't want to be seen why put lights on your craft?
There is, of course, the Douglas Adams theorie: that UFOs are just really rich
kids from other planets who have to much time on their hands that like to come 
and "buzz" beings who have yet to discover space travel.

the answer to that my friend is that the crafts may be multi-purpose.  They
could have lights for other reasons, what if an intergalactic ship is also
used for evreyday travel on their planet?

The cynic would say that lights are easier to fake than a whole ufo, being as
they can be photographed with the background in total darkness

I read somewhere that reports of ufo's never mentioned lights until 1946. 
Then all reports mentioned lights.  Anyone read anything to this effect?

hmm...

Can't say I have...

me neither

That is an interesting point.  I have never read anything to that effect,
however, thinking back to reports that I have heard about pilots who have seen
ufos I seem to remember that most claim not to see lights.

ah...but we aren't talking pictures here, are we?  There were no pictures to
fake in the case of pilots' reports, so they didn't have to see lights

Or perhaps all the sightings were during the day and you couldn't see the
lights?

I should think that would be the case

Crickey, now the loch ness has turned into a UFO or as Ori put it sometime
ago, a USO. Eh, Ori?

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss