Nessie Caught on Film?

I am not quite sure what to make of this footage except to say that in the very beginning you can definitely make out a large shape traveling just under the surface of the water. The film isnt the sharpest quality, and its a little shaky, however it is intriguing nonetheless.

In April we were given a remarkable piece of footage. Although we have spoken to the person who took it on a number of occasions and are convinced of his veracity, he has asked to remain anonymous. We sent copies of the film to various members of our board of consultants, and sat back to await a verdict. We were not expecting every single person who has seen this video to give a different explanation for it. It has been described as a pair of otters, a water bird of some kind, a giant eel, men in diving suits and a pair of seals.

www.forteanzoology.com...#

That is kinda eiree. At the begining there is definetly a large shape under the water. I don't know what to say, but I think that this might be it.

Its not Nessie the guy says its moving but it doesnt look like it to me beside the guy keeps swinging the camera round so its impossible to tell what it is.

I think I read somewhere that the BBC took like a pinging machine and pinged every square inch of the Loch Ness lake. But nothing "big" pinged back. So they concluded that there was no such monster.

So all films, photos and sights have been and are fake.
But its gr8 that they have a myth to believe in.

It must be moving. Air diffuses into water when it is mixed up or disturbed; turning the water white. The water arund the object is white

I dont think it is moving i reckon it is arecently sunk vessel, it looks like it is moving but in fact it aint.

that certainly is a strange video but it some scenes when they say it is moving the grass and the "thing" stay exactly in the same places

Hmm. Some of the worst camera work I've seen! Heck it isn't that difficult to keep a camera steady! Should have been leaning it on "Lynn's" shoulder instead of giving the dodgy commentary

There's obviously something there, and if I had to choose, I'd go for the otter/seal theory, however he does keep saying it's white.

In the opening shot it does look like whatever is in the foreground is a fair bit bigger, and admittedly it looks pretty weird to begin with.

Sorry - am gonna have to sit on the fence on this one.

I live only a 15 minute drive from the Loch, and I've seen the light do some pretty weird things even with just birds on the surface, and particularly with slight wakes caused by debris (trees etc) just under the surface - it's well known that there can be some pretty strange currents in the Loch, which can make objects run repeating paths as they're caught up in a 'swirl' for a period of time.

I dunno.

Originally posted by ktprktpr
I think I read somewhere that the BBC took like a pinging machine and pinged every square inch of the Loch Ness lake. But nothing "big" pinged back. So they concluded that there was no such monster.

that's absolutely right, but there is subterranean interconnection between a lot of lochs in scotland, so Nessie might not have been there at the time (assuming nessie is real - i'm not sure about that one...... yet)

I used to fully believe in Nessie... but over the years my attitude has changed...

I guess with all the books and articles on Nessie I read in my school days having been "disproved" has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I guess I'm at the crossroads now; I want to believe in it, but, at the same time, I'm going to need something that won't be counted as false a few years down the road.

it looks like a white blastic thing bobbying in the water...

and then it was pulled with a fishing line...........


I think there may have been a "nessie" there many years ago

In my openion that video evidnece is poor at best and in my mind proves nothing. It appeared to me to be a ping pong ball sitting on the water and being pulled. There is also a squence where their is clearly action to the left of the camera but it is not caught on tape fully. It would seem odd that the camera man would film everything else in the vacinity for no particular reason but neglect to film the above mentioned action.

I kept wondering what he was conveniently avoiding on the left hand side and I am pretty sure it was the shore.
So such a large creature would be almost beached being that close.....

This film the guy seems genuine though and so does the woman and to me their voices and general composure lead me to belive yhat they were convinced even if I am not....

It's wayyy too small. Plus, it looks like it could be anything. A swimming rodent or something. Until we have an actuall specimin, we'll never know what Nessie is.

#ers won't let me save the movie to my hard drive so I can actually watch it. Streaming videos from web sites just doesn't work.

Damn that's some spooky spooky #. Why don't they just have an assload of armed scuba divers go in there and find out what is really down there? That object in the water looked awfully damn big, so it HAS to be something. Why not just go down there and check for hidden caves or holes? Possibly empty the lake?

Should have been leaning it on "Lynn's" shoulder instead of giving the dodgy commentary

Yes the camera work was bad. What did you make of the man's accent, when he was giving his commentary? Any hints on his location of origin?

I'm wondering if it might be a prehistoric species of alligator or something which would be immune to the climate (possibly through use of underwater thermals, if such exist in the loch?). Things have happened in the Loch but the scientific evidence stands. I wonder what their range was in terms of object size on those scans.

Would they have picked up anything close to the size of the things in the video? They look like they could easily blend into the bottom.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the first recorded sighting of anything 'strange' in the Loch was in 565 AD. Then there was NOTHING else seen until 1933.

The guy (sorry, can't recall his name offhand) who originally reported that 1930's sighting to his local newspaper - and sparked off the modern day myth - admitted on his death-bed that he lied.

Look at this logically. How many hundreds of thousands of people have cast their eyes (and cameras) upon the Loch since 1933? And how many unquestionable cases of photographic evidence have resulted? Not ONE.

If that isn't enough for you, how do you explain this: Recently the BBC set up a major investgation into the Loch. Using Sonar technology that scanned every inch of the Loch, from top to bottom, and scanning the equivalent of 600 ships (SIX HUNDRED!) all searching at the same time, there was NOTHING found.

The monster is nothing but the world's biggest tourist attraction. Remove the monster and all you're left with is an over-large lake in the middle of nowhere. Do you realise how many millions of pounds the monster has lured into the region in the last 50 years alone?

If the Loch Ness tourist trade where to revert to visits from people attracted by it's naturally beauty alone, Tourist income would drop by over 90%.

On a conspiracy site it's ironic that the discussion is in favour of a monster, when the biggest conspiracy is being pulled off by the locals in making you lot think there IS a monster!

The film isnt the sharpest quality, and its a little shaky, however it is intriguing nonetheless.

I would say, given the manner of filming, it's fake.

Firstly the guy is all over the place with the camera. If you or I thought we had a monster in our sights we'd keep the damn thing targeted. Secondly, there is a point early on in the film where he zooms right up close to the water (where something is seen moving, obscured through trees). Then there's some more messy camerawork, before the camera gets a good, clear and lenghty shot of the 'head'.

Now, at being given this excellent viewpoint, the cameraman chooses to keep the camera view distant, without zooming in?! Gimme a break. Again, if you or I were in that position, and had the capability to zoom in as close as he had done with the obscured shot, we'd be using it. Why didn't he? Go figure.

And don't you find one thing strange? At the start of the video to the left of the screen is a 'bank' - directly behind 'the monster'. Two minutes later into the film, after the camera has been following the 'beast' making it's way along, the camera jumps slightly to the left again. The same bank can be seen for just a second, and the position of 'the monster', despite all his 'paddling' has hardly changed. Now that's either a monster that likes to tread water, or a very small animal that can't move very fast over large areas.