UFOs Spotted Above Loch Ness

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Hmm

Try www.metabunk.org...

I think it's not working because ATS seems to freak out over the word "window"

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yeah I found it through the power of Google - nice to see I was right about the location though

a reply to: Chadwickus

Only when followed by a .
Conspiracy I says!

Looks like the water landing gear of a twin otter or like, without the rest of the aircraft!
Agree it is probably a reflection of sorts withing the room in a double pane window. Makes most sense.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Whether this person says that they went outside to take the picture is not the issue. The fact that the lower right of the image seems to indicate that the picture was taken through a window is what matters. That is very strong evidence to support the "reflection" theory. It's certainly enough to convince me.

DEBUNKED without doubt, the link below shows without doubt that what you are looking at is a light reflection from WITHIN a property near the lake and the double reflection is due to double Glazed windows.

UFO over Loch Ness Debunked

This one is a closed case.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Hmm

Try www.metabunk.org...

I think it's not working because ATS seems to freak out over the word "window"

Yes, it works if anyone copys and pastes your actual text into the search bar, and closes the two gaps

https: //www.metabunk.org/debunked-ufo-over-loch-ness-reflection-in-dual-pane-window .t6373/

I find this one quite interesting although I have to concede it is most likely reflection,

Supposing for the sake of argument they are real aerial objects, they do match the description of a UFO sighted at Loch Ness in the 1970s. The witness described the craft as looking like a steam iron.

I had a book on UFOs as a child which had an account of this sighting and an artists impression of the craft. I'm sure it's a well documented sighting if anyone cares to look it up.

They do look very like it. I remember the article said the witness wanted to remain anonymous due to fear of being ridiculed.

It sticks in my mind due to the unusual description and look of the craft.

a reply to: angus1745

Very interesting, thank you, I will look into that!

originally posted by: justbe
a reply to: CallYourBluff

The lady said she went outside to take pictures.

Yet you can CLEARLY see a reflection in the right half of the image!

Found this article today and had to add it, if only for completion.

I reserve my opinion about this. I cannot know what happened, I wasnt there with them.

They talked to metabunk and the family again, please read:

Mystery Of Loch Ness UFO Photo Deepens

"We recently presented a story of how tourists visiting Scotland's famous Loch Ness came away from their vacation with a curious photo that subsequently became an Internet sensation.

When Alan Betts and his wife, Anna, first looked at their holiday pictures after returning to their York, UK, home, they noticed something odd in the following image that had been taken by Anna's mother.

When the Betts zoomed in on the picture and saw something weird in the sky above the water, they released it to the media, hoping someone would determine the true identity of this possible UFO.

Someone did come forth, claiming to know exactly what the photo shows.

"It's almost certainly just the reflection of a light inside the room, doubled up by [a] dual pane window," according to Mick West, a retired video game programmer who now runs Metabunk.org, an online site, "dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating and debunking."

Betts confirmed to HuffPost that various pictures West used from a promotional video (seen below) show the cottage her family stayed in while on vacation.

But, can pictures culled from a real estate video be the best source of an investigation that requires very precise image analysis?

"I would be very interested if [West] could go there and try to replicate it," Betts suggests. "I'm also very skeptical about his statement of one lamp reflecting the same reflection twice in line with one another because of [double-glazed windows]. And we most certainly didn't stage it! I can assure you of that!"

In his article, West goes to great lengths to try and prove that the Betts' collective memory of how the photo came to be taken is in error. To this end, West shows many images and attempts to triangulate a variety of angles and ways in which the UFO photo could only have been taken indoors (contrary to the Betts' story), and that the alleged UFO in their photo was simply the double reflection of a reading light.

While West suggests the Betts have a fuzzy memory about how this UFO photo was taken -- from inside or outside of the cottage -- one of the images he showed on his site at first wasn't exactly the same one the Betts took. It was reversed.

The following image shows two points of view of the same picture presented by the Betts family. If you look closely, the top frame is from the original image released by the Betts. The bottom frame, however, was from West's analysis in which he uses a variety of lines to clarify the exact angle and window from where -- he maintains -- the Betts UFO picture was taken.



In West's original story, these two frames were exact opposite, mirror images of each other. HuffPost reached out to West about this.

"It's just for convenience, because of the orientation of the viewpoint (looking South), the image would be upside down if placed correctly. I just flipped it vertically," he told HuffPost in an email. "Since all the reference points are centered vertically, it makes no real difference."

West added that he has updated his original article to include the proper orientation of the Betts photo.

When HuffPost sent West's story to Anna Betts, she contradicted his conclusions.

"That is weird. We only came in that day after sightseeing and did not put any lights on. We were outside -- me and my Mum -- to snap both sides of the view which was not visible from the house. I have a picture from a different angle looking the other way. I honestly don't know what curtain reflection he means. To my memory, all the pictures of that day were taken from outside."

What do you think? Has West made his case with his suppositions and, in so doing, has shown how the Betts' recollection of the situation isn't so clear?

Or did the Betts not forget the details of what happened? Maybe the only real way to determine the truth here is if someone goes to this exact location at Loch Ness and reconstructs the event with new photographs.

That way, it should be easy enough to determine if the UFO was nothing more than a reflected reading lamp. And who knows, while they're out there taking new pictures, maybe they'll grab an image of a legendary long-necked creature said to lurk in those murky waters."

article

a reply to: justbe

Mick West's analysis still stands for me, the photos are clearly taken inside, their dismissal of the reflections of the curtains shows that either they really are fuzzy about their recollections, and therefore unreliable in the rest of their recollections or trying to milk this for all its worth.

Lack of money? Tourist season? Obviously...

I guess I'm the only one that thinks the UFOs look nothing like the lamp. If you look closely, you'll notice that the two large objects are not identical to each other. Also how is no one seeing what appears to be three smaller objects behind each of the two larger ones? What part of the lamp is that? And again, the three smaller thingies are not identical to each other.

Plus, the image of the UFO used to compare to the lamp in the Metabunk article is CLEARLY doctored to more accurately match the lamp shape. Just compare the Metabunk pic to the original. The front has been rounded off and the color has been adjusted. Nevermind the fact that the UFOs have what appear to be a flat darkened top area where the lamp is, well, you know, LIT UP. And as far as the supposed reflection of the lady: parodeilia. Metabunk seems like an ironically appropriate name. The original photo does look to be taken from indoors however due to what seems like a reflection of curtains.

To clarify: Not necessarily saying they are UFOs, but the lamp theory isn't doing it for me right now. And kind of shocked how everyone seems to be ignoring these fairly obvious problems with this whole lamp business. Pretty shady. (See what I did there?)

a reply to: ultimafule

Plus, the image of the UFO used to compare to the lamp in the Metabunk article is CLEARLY doctored to more accurately match the lamp shape.

Forget the lamp...explain the reflection of the curtains in the pic that was supposed to be taken outside in the rain?

That doesn't happen unless you were inside looking through the window that has curtains.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Forget the lamp? You mean the primary focus of the attempted debunking and its utter lack of resemblance to the UFOs? Forget the fact that Metabunk has obviously and poorly doctored the original image? Yes, let's ignore all evidence pointing to the contrary and focus on the reflection of the curtain which I already addressed in the previous post. You didn't even read the whole thing, did you? What the hell is going on here???

So, we have two suggestions:

1. It is the reflection of a lamp in double glazed windows, a claim amply supported by supporting evidence of photographs from inside the cottage from which the original photo was taken.

or

2. It is a mysterious pair of very bright very large UFOs in broad daylight that somehow no-one else saw (it's a busy area, I know it well), a claim supported by...well...pretty much nothing other than closing eyes and wishing very hard.

I know where my money is.

a reply to: ultimafule

I disagree that the lamp image has been manipulated.

I went and checked the images provided. You do realise the image he used was from the cottage's video?

a reply to: ultimafule

It's Sunday. And I've got nothing better to do.. So, after reading ultimafule's post, I started thinking: If it's just the lamp reflection, it should be easy to recreate, no?

Unfortunately I can't travel to scotland right now, but I have a lamp just like that, double glazed windows, and though I realize it will not be exactly the same, it should at least be somewhat similar.

It took some rearranging, cleaning windows and praying my neighbor from across wasnt watching, but I took some pictures and dont even come close. Even the weather is the same here right now, rainy and a bit hazy.

I dont get a double reflection unless the lamp is right in front of the window, less than 0.5 meters or 2 feet away. More than that and the double reflection is almost not noticeable.

Even with the double reflection, it's not such a clear one, the lights are not next to each other, but overlapping at the half.

It's a halogen reading lamp and the light is very bundled, so if its pointing straight down, I get only a thin line reflecting.

So I tried different angles of the lamp and also just bending it a bit so it shines right at the wndow. Trying to get a picture from next to it, so I dont reflect myself in the window, from behind, up, down, been doing quite some acrobatics here.

I can not come close.

I dont have my heart set on this, actually this is just been quite some fun for me. I am not trying to proof this was a UFO. Just in general, I think some things are being dismissed too quickly and too easily.

And I know what some of you are going to say, it's a different window, different glass thickness, different light, different camera, different country, different everything... So, go ahead, fire away lol