Another Loch Ness Monster Submission from Scott Mardis

Scott Mardis made this comparison between the Loch Ness Monster as reported by William Campbell and one of the Rines underwater pictures. I thought it was pretty spot-on and very suggestive as evidence.

Comment by Jay C on Zombie Plesiosaur Society Facebook Group: I concur with Dale! Excellent work. The photographic data supports the anecdotal data and vice versa.

Loch Ness Underwater Photos from Scott Mardis, additional

The Rines "Two Bodies" photo, which correspond to a sonar trace showing the presence of two large features (about 30 feet long) in the scanned field simultaneously. The longer projection or flipper is estimated as being 6 to 8 feet long and corresponds to the separate "Flipper" photos (1975)

In 1975, vertebrate paleontologist L.B. Halstead pointed out that the rhomboidal flippers seen in the Rines Loch Ness underwater photos from 1972 did not match the hydrofoil shape of then-current reconstructions of plesiosaur flipper shapes, based on skin outlines preserved around some plesiosaur flipper specimens (Hydrodrion brachypterygius and Seelyosaurus guillelmi-imperatoris). A May 2013 Master’s thesis by vertebrate paleontologist Mark Cruz DeBlois may question that assertion. Using hydrodynamic principles in combination with advanced mathematical formulas, DeBlois has produced a predicted plesiosaur flipper shape for the front flippers of the plesiosaur Cryptocleidus eurymerus that is much closer to the rhomboidal shape of the Rines flippers, with a much larger trailing edge of flesh that extends beyond the flipper bones (see upper left, blue and red outlines). Read it for yourself athttp://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1502&context=etd

 
 Traditional reconstructions of plesiosaur flipper morphology and plesiosaur flipper skin impressions: (clockwise from top left) the front and rear flippers of Hydrodrion brachypterygius, the right rear flipper of the "Collard plesiosaur" from the UK, a typical model of the traditional proposed plesiosaur flipper morphology and sketches of the skin impressions surrounding the flippers of the plesiosaurs Seelyosaurus guillelmi-imperatoris and Hydrodrion brachypterygius.

DeBlois' hypothesized front flipper of Hydrodrion brachypterygius overlayed on the second Rines "flipper" image.

In 1975 the biggest breakthrough for Dr. Rines and his team came when a set of close-up underwater photographs were taken which when released in December of that year caused a worldwide sensation. The pictures which show the head and body of one of the creatures in remarkable detail, were taken with the Edgerton strobe camera during the expedition the previous June.For several months the pictures were examined in secret in zoological centres in Britain, America, Canada and Europe. It was planned to release them in early December at a scientific symposium in Edinburgh to be attended by zoologists from all over the world under the chairmanship of the famous British naturalist and painter Sir Peter Scott. News of the pictures leaked out at the end of November, before the study of them was complete and caused such excitement that the sponsors of the symposium, who included the prestigious Royal Society, felt it would be impossible to conduct a proper scientific discussion in such an atmosphere. Consequently the symposium, at which the whole Loch Ness controversy would have been debated at length and hopefully resolved, had to be cancelled. In its place a meeting was held in the Grand Committee Room at the Houses of Parliament at the instigation of David James, the MP who had led the Investigation Bureau. Before a large audience of members of both houses of Government, scientists and journalists, the Academy team presented the results of their research, including the new underwater photographs, together with supporting statements from eminent zoologists who had been examining the material. Dr. George Zug, the Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians at the renowned Smithsonian Institution in Washington said in his personal statement : "I believe these data indicate the presence of large animals in Loch Ness, but are insufficient to indentify them ".

The nearly universal reaction is that the photographs show something which looks very much like a long-necked Plesiosaur. The photo sequence is shown here in two alternate orientations.

The G E Taylor film, Loch Ness, 1938

Forwarded from the Lake Monsters page on Facebook

The G E Taylor film, Loch Ness, 1938.

On May 29th, 1938, a South African tourist, GE Taylor, scored another film. It is the first color film of the Loch Ness monster . Taylor used a 16mm camera . At that time, when interviewed by newspapers , Taylor said:

" It was a very long and rounded body ending in a long neck that was about the only thing that stuck out , the rest of the body was about half a meter below the surface. Its color was a very dark almost black gray, was moving near the shore opposite Foyers and could see at a distance of about 200 meters. This was approximately 12:00 noon."

Then he went to find one of his friends and went to see the monster was still in the lake, even closer than before  150 meters away. Taylor resumed his camera and filmed again.

The entire film was sent to the writer Maurice Burton , who in turn referred it to the United Kyndom National Institute of Oceanography (now Southampton Oceanographic Centre) which found that it was " an inanimate object among many floating in the lake."

One of the few people who has seen the movie, and also have it in custody, is Maurice Burton. Unfortunately Burton has not let anyone analyze it which reduces its credibility .

Burton posted a picture on his book "The Elusive Monster" , before he retired . Dr. Roy P Mackall said that the photo was a "positive test " according to Janet and Colin Bord

 The witness' description seems to be correct, this looks like a long extension above water and more of the body just below the surface, but somewhat foreshortened from the angle and very blurry overall. However it is just possible what is being shown is something like the white line I have added to indicate it. This is of course going by my own bias in the matter and no doubt shall draw criticism from the skeptics. I should mention that this way is in agreement with the reports and with the Rines underwater "Body" photo. Burton says the limbs are barely visible moving below the water and this also seems to be true.

This is admittedly speculative and you are free to form your own opinions on the matter.

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.

 

 

Further Analysis of the Rines Underwater Flipper and Neck Photos at Loch Ness

Since I had posted material in support of the 1975 AAAP underwater Flipper and Neck photos taken at Loch Ness recently, I thought I should reprint this following analysis voicing a second opinion. This was previously published along with some "Surviving Pterosaur" material and I shall go into the second part of that material separately at some future time-DD. 

 

BSM RESEARCH ASSOCIATES HOMEPAGE

Back to BSMRA Main Site

[All BSMRA Sites]

Dr. Robert Rines:

 

Dr. Robert Rines asked me (Clifford Paiva) to apply some image processing to the 1975 frame of the animal caught on Dr. Edgerton's submerged strobe camera.

The results of that analysis revealed an Elasmosaur type animal reacting (see the bubble "wake" frames) to the strong flash. Reflection is seen off of the animal and in the surrounding medium.

[NB I also do not insist on an Elasmosaurian identity of the Loch Ness Monster but rather from a different family anatomically different from the Elasmosaurs in several controversial points]

 

[In other words at the very least there is a length of neck in the "gap" area that physically connects the visible head and neck parts and which is clearly differentiated from the water, and is setting up discernible waves in the water itself which are noticed and indicated.-DD]

http://smtp.antelecom.net/blogs/bsmaplesiosaur/index_08_11.htm