[Unfortunately Scott Mardis' xerox of the text is not reproduceable although I have another copy of the text which I can add later on. However the illustrations here show what Greenwell was driving at: the creatures shown in the famous "Periscope" sightings at both Loch Ness and Lake Champlain are reemarkably similar, although the one at Loch Ness is larger: compared to the reports, neither individual is very large and neither one is likely to be an adult.]
No offense to you or Scott, but I think that whatever the Surgeons photo shows is way to small to be a large long necked animal. It is quite clear in the I cropped photo based off of the size of the waves and such.
ReplyDeleteHi Jay, I am not taking any particular stance as to what either the Wilson photo at Loch Ness or the Mansi photo at Lake Champlain at this point in time. What I am doing is allowing others to state the case. Scott is championing the cause that both photos are real and depict real creatures, very similar real creatures according to Greenwell. At this point I should also add, neither photo shows a conventional water bird like a cormorant, either: the head is all wrong for that.
ReplyDeletePart of the longer material that Scott sent me in this pdf (and I did not include owing for lack of space) is a transcript of the PBS Nova program on the Surgeon's photo at Loch Ness. During the program, both large and small mock-up models were made and photographed. When all is said and done, the ripples in the small-scale photo did not match the photo and the people that made the model admitted the point. Then the narrator flatly contradicted this statement and said the small model was a good match for the photo.
My own impression is that the waves in the water were a better match in the larger scale model, and I made some estimations of my own by going to a local body of water and attempting to replicate the effect in the photo. My inpression is that the object in the photo is approximately the size of a standing human being. And you can check this yourself: the apparent size of a normal human being only a little way down the street is actually only a very tiny part of your overall field of vision.
But as I said, I am not making my own presentation now, all I am trying to establish is that the Spurling "Confession" is worthless as evidence.
I notice another problem with Scott's interpretation of the mansion photo; part of what is assumed to be part of the alleged animal's "back" has actually been shown to be most likely a shadow cast by the supposed "head." Was this confirmed by your analysis of the photo?
ReplyDeleteAlso, does your analysis take into account the idea that the "back" is actually a flipper? I presently have no opinion on whether this would make the idea that it is a plesiosaur more likely or not.
ReplyDeleteThis was my original CFZ statement about the Mansi photo: I thought the position of the neck was rather improbable and basically I thought that alone was the crucial feature to build a case on. The texture of the skin and so on were things which were not important to me at all: http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2010/02/dale-drinnon-commentary-on-darren.html
ReplyDeleteI still think that is a most peculiar posture of the neck for any vertebrate animal to take, but I basically have gone back to being noncommittal myself to give others a chance to offer their own input.
That's nice, thank you, Dale.
ReplyDelete