I recently (a few months ago) saw a show on the Discovery Channel or some such that had a supposedly new video documented sighting of Nessie, which they then showed the viewers. It’s different than the old one from 1934: this one was color footage, and the monster appeared white, but the real capper was that it actually looked organic and alive. The head and neck were moving, and one could see with pretty good clarity that it was something alive. I wish I had cite…Did anyone else see that show? Maybe I missed something and it was just a re-enactment, but I don’t think so. It was incredibly convincing.
Didn’t I just hear that there is now a website with a 24 hour underwater “Nessie-cam” that people can watch?
Of course, it’s a stationary camera, so the damn thing will have to swim right up & say cheese…
The mailbag item to which the original post refers can be found here: What’s the verdict on the Loch Ness monster? (20-Sep-2000)
Don’t know anything about the specific example mentioned. Haven’t seen it, or heard of it till now.
However, there was a nifty special on FOX, of all stations, that was really interesting. It was all about hoaxes and sundry related topics, everything from Nessie to UFO’s to religious sightings. Believe it or not, it was a skeptical show. From FOX?
The bit on Nessie was interesting. They demonstrated just how easy it is to make a very convincing fake picture and video. For the video segment, the made a segmented wooden tube section that was tied together so it moved very similar to a snake skeleton. The covered this frame with a bright green/yellow tarp. The used an underwater scuba diver to pull it around, and videod it from a boat on a pond. With the sunlight low casting the view in shadows, it was darned impressive and downright convincing. And it moved, too.
All I can say is one video does not constitute proof.
I’ve got some bad news for people who put a lot of effort into making a “realistic” looking Nessie.
I’ve been to Loch Ness, and let me tell you - the shapes of the waves, the shadows of clouds, and the branches in the water make everything look like it could be a creature of some sort. I spent 4 hours at Castle Urqhart, and in that time recorded no less than 6 “possible” Nessie sightings. That is, six sightings of things I stared and stared at and kept thinking “Damn! What is that thing out there?”
I even recorded the most convincing one on my camcorder. A large group of people gathered to point to a row of shapes consisting of a large hump, with several smaller humps behind it out on the lake, moving against the wind and acting very alive. It was very cloudy then, and people were yelling and pointing and saying things like “Oh my God, what IS that? It’s the monster!” Hell, I couldn’t tell what it was either, so I started zooming in with the camcorder. I had just zoomed in on it when the lead hump let out several loud sounds that carried very well across the lake (the lake is actually very quiet except when the Tourist boat is near, or the obligatory bagpipe is not wailing):
QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!
And everyone started laughing in embarassment.
Because of the visual conditions at the lake, and the general expectation of seeing a “monster”, there is no artifice needed really.
Discovery online carries a selection of webcams, one of which is a loch ness cam. There are several cameras set up, and the view switches from one to the other. Just head on over to http://www.discovery.com and look for the webcams link.
Look Out! It’s the Loch Ness Duck!
that film of Bigfoot? You know, the one where he (she?) is walking through the clearing, then turns to look at the camera?
I recall from some In Search Of or something that analysis of the gait indicated it wasn’t human (yeah, I know, probably from the same guy that autopsied the alien). Nonetheless, I’ve not seen any refutation of that film…
Someone watched the film and concluded that the gait wasn’t human?
… Have they watched the clips from the Ministry of Silly Walks?
johnson, in brief, it’s a hoax.
See http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html . Be sure to read the first two links at the bottom.
Also, Skeptical Inquirer did an article on it a little while back. It’s not available online, but here’s a link to the site:
http://www.csicop.org/si/online.html
1999, Volume 23 #3, May/June
Irishman, thanks for the links–very interesting. I’ve not heard any of that before.
While I’m of the belief that the film is (almost–??) certainly a hoax, and that the make-up artist explanation sounds quite compelling, the two articles are generally “friend-of-a-friend,” and not definitive proof.
It does add weight to the other arguments against Bigfoot–no young 'uns, scat, different footprints, etc.
Too bad…
While the article did not get a confession from the supposed perpetrators directly, and thus isn’t 100%, there is plenty of evidence to reasonably conclude it is a fake, and very little evidence to conclude it is real.