Plug

Member of The Crypto Crew:
http://www.thecryptocrew.com/

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

http://cedar-and-willow.blogspot.com/

And Kyle Germann's Blog

http://www.demonhunterscompendium.blogspot.com/

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.com/

Saturday 14 September 2013

Gargoyle Face at Loch Ness

 

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster

Robert Rines's studies (1972, 1975...)

In the early 1970s, a group of people led by Robert H. Rines obtained some underwater photographs. Two were rather vague images, perhaps of a rhomboid flipper (though others have dismissed the image as air bubbles or a fish fin). The alleged flipper was photographed in different positions, indicating movement.[69] On the basis of these photographs, British naturalist Peter Scott announced in 1975 that the scientific name of the monster would henceforth be Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin").[70] Scott intended that this would enable Nessie to be added to a British register of officially protected wildlife. Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn pointed out that the name was an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S".[71][72]
[This anagram actually is not exact and has a leftover extra letter, thus invalidating the claim]

The underwater photos were reportedly obtained by painstakingly examining the loch depths with sonar for unusual underwater activity. Rines knew the water was murky and filled with floating wood and peat, so he took precautions to avoid it. A submersible camera with an affixed, high-powered flood light was deployed to record images below the surface. If he detected anything on the sonar, he would turn the lights on and take some pictures. Several of the photographs, despite their obviously murky quality, did indeed seem to show an animal resembling a plesiosaur in various positions and lightings. One photograph appeared to show the head, neck and upper torso of a plesiosaur-like animal.[73] After two distinct sonar contacts were made, the strobe light camera photographed two large lumps in the water, suggesting there to be two large animals living in the loch. Another photo seemed to depict a horned "gargoyle head", consistent to that of several sightings of the monster.[74] Sceptics point out that several years later, a log was filmed underwater which bore a striking resemblance to the gargoyle head...

 
I thought this suggestion had some potential value and I looked up the images of the waterlogged stump that had been photographed in the same area on the second on the second occasion. Two alternative prints of the object in question are directly below.

 
On comparing this object to the "Gargoyle head" photo, several points of comparison do present themselves. In both cases the "mouth" is a sort of a bite that has been cut out of the one side of the stump, and there are both longer sticklike protrusions above this "Bite" and smaller warty lumps below it which are obvious features of the so-called gargoyle face and are readily discernible on the stump in question. The object is not in the same orientation in both images but the similar features are clearly there.
 
 
 On the other hand the Plesiosaurian head and neck photo does not show anything like the same kind of a head, which was one of the dead giveaways that some kind of a mistake had been made. There is no good reason to call the Plesiosaurian head+ neck photo anything but what is is supposed to be.
 

Scott Mardis has presented evidence on this blog in which he tried to justify the gargoyle head along with the rest of the 1975 Rines /AAAS underwater photos but in my opinion he was wrong to do so. As far as I am concerned it is clearly the same stump. However his evidence concerning the diamond-shaped flipper and the processing necessary to make it more visible sounds reasonable. He had also lined up two Plesiosaur skeletons to be in the same positions as the sonar-con "Two Bodies" photo and that also look reasonable to me. The criticisms of both photos sounds overly harsh once Scott has accounted for the seeming discrepancies. Although I cannot endorse the "Gargoyle Head" photo. the other underwater photos look like strong evidence for an unknown animal in the loch.
 
 

3 comments:

  1. Yes, I have always thought that the Rines photos were some of the best evidence for large, unknown animals in Loch Ness.

    BTW, what is your opinion about this blog?

    lochnessmystery.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1/ "The alleged flipper was photographed in different positions, indicating movement." However, the movement was of the camera rig, and not the scrape mark it had made in the loch bed. See http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/flipper.htm and http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/8aug72sonar.html
    The AAS mistakenly published artwork showing both sonar and camera unit fixed to the loch bottom; at the time of the photography both were suspended beneath boats free to swing on their moorings.
    2/ "The underwater photos were reportedly obtained by painstakingly examining the loch depths with sonar for unusual underwater activity. Rines knew the water was murky and filled with floating wood and peat, so he took precautions to avoid it. A submersible camera with an affixed, high-powered flood light was deployed to record images below the surface. If he detected anything on the sonar, he would turn the lights on and take some pictures. Several of the photographs, despite their obviously murky quality, did indeed seem to show an animal resembling a plesiosaur in various positions and lightings." I will be generous and describe this account as "under-informed".
    For the record I will remind readers that I was on the sonar boat "Narwhal" the night the "Flipper pictures" were recorded, and that I later predicted the existence and location of the object dubbed the Gargoyle Head, I was part of the Loch Ness Project team that located it 12 years later during Operation Deepscan, I filmed and photographed it underwater, recovered it to the surface and later made many photographs of it in my garage to test my idea that it was the same object as the AAS team had photographed in 1975. The references above to sonar detection triggering camera flood-lights refer to equipment that, for various reasons, never recorded any images of interest. Both the Flipper and Gargoyle series were recorded on a simple, elegant and effective lapse-time unit designed and built many years earlier by Doc Edgerton for Jacques Cousteau. In my estimation the Flipper pictures are scrapes in the bottom of the loch caused by camera rig contact, the Gargoyle Head is the tree-stump found in 1975, and the "Whole body shot" is a silhouette of the tree-stump, showing a small area of illuminated loch bottom which can be interpreted as an animal if you wish. Back at the time Geoff Harwood, a leading British underwater photographer, pointed out that the presence of 'drop shadows' in the photo showed that it was shot at extremely close range ( less than 3 feet) and not otherwise. The intensity of illumination confirms this interpretation. For the technically minded, and from recollection, the Edgerton strobe had a power output of 100 watt-seconds, and my own photos were taken with a Sea&Sea Yellow Sub 40, 40 watt-second unit on a Nikonos 2 camera. All the photos of the tree stump on land or underwater were taken by myself.

    These comments should not be taken as criticism of anyone other than the author of the wiki article quoted, and are offered to help researchers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK Fair enough it is to be stressed that this is not the place on this blog where the alleged flipper photos are discussed, the flipper photos are discussed under a different heading and by different authors In the interest of fairness though I shall allow the comments to stand. They are not in the right place here to refute any comments made by anybody else and this posting was made to discuss the other photos as noted. I very much thank you for the shots of the stump itself ewghich in my opinion truly do solve the matter of the Gargoyle head, a matter which never should have been considered as strong evidence by serious researchers. As to the other photographs, I can only say that the photographs are open to a wide range of interpretations and not only the interpretations favoured by Dick Raynor here. Merely offering an opinion about (Hypothetical) scrapes on the Loch's floor and (Hypothetical) shadows of a waterlogged log are not proof of anything. The matters are certainly not closed by making any such pronouncements, even if by persons directly involved in the project. Things just don't work that way.

      And I got the stump photos to compare to the gargoyle head from another researcher who did not indicate the source. I regret it if you were not credited in such an important matter. The comparisons with other photos were done by me and the evaluations based on the comparisons were done by me.
      Please note that I was not offering any personal analysis or evaluation of the other photos at this time and I was merely indicated the previously quoted opinions of others. On this blog it is necessary for me to act as the referee in this matter. I incline to the Plesiosaurian interpretation but I will not advance in the face of definitive proof to the contrary. I do not consider the opinions stated here to constitute definitive proof.

      Delete

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.