tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post5997438134458684674..comments2024-01-05T05:02:20.353+00:00Comments on CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: LINDSAY SELBY: The Tim Dinsdale FilmUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-40953355573375455362010-06-02T23:57:59.532+01:002010-06-02T23:57:59.532+01:00Tabitca - 1 Please explain where I have insulted a...Tabitca - 1 Please explain where I have insulted anyone at all, and yourself in particular. If you can I apologise in advance. 2 Is cryptozoology a religion or a scientific endeavour? If the latter, then any "theory" can be challenged. 3 "That arguement works both ways I am afraid." - please explain.<br />I have found the images I was talking about at<br />http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Remembered.html<br />Image stacking is a process more usually used in astrophotography and similar fields where images have a low signal to noise ratio, and far from being "desperate" it is actually scientifically "elegant". If Ivan Sanderson, JARIC and Henry Bauer's friend at Virginia Tech had been able to make a 100 frame stack they would have got the same result. I am not familiar with Sanderson's book so "Chapter 2 pages 17-20 and including figure 3" doesn't convey anything to me; perhaps Dale will expand on this. Several critical errors crept into JARIC's calculations, including getting the camera altitude wrong by 50 feet, omitting the camera winding times from their distance/time speed calculations and perversely using Y-axis measurement, 17 times less accurate than the X-axis, as a basis for the distance travelled. Having said that objects can sometimes not be visible in a photograph, their main grounds for a "probably animate" tag was the 10 mph speed which came from their own flawed calculations, as a 15 ft boat tends to go at 7 mph - the same 7 mph they measured for the more accurate right to left segment of the film!<br /><br />Look up Henry Bauer on wikipedia.<br /><br />Can anyone name any large aquatic - I mean living normally under the water - creature which can swim for half a mile on the surface with over half of its body continuously out of the water? Any that splash with their paddles as they go along? AAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982472466101488997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-50341109450102117542010-06-02T10:21:40.794+01:002010-06-02T10:21:40.794+01:00Only the desperate would pile photos on top of eac...Only the desperate would pile photos on top of each other to prove it was a boat. That arguement works both ways I am afraid. Insulting people is never good thing. If people present reasoned arguement fine, but what is it about cryptozoology that every passing person thinks they can insult others for their theories?Tabitcahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00685620846174596978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-34637295327682192902010-06-01T20:23:04.829+01:002010-06-01T20:23:04.829+01:00Correction:
"On page 12 there are 2 images pr...Correction:<br />"On page 12 there are 2 images produced MY the established "image stacking" process." should have been BY the established "image stacking" process.<br /><br />Sorry for any confusion. ATNAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982472466101488997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-17932805276684211712010-06-01T14:52:05.656+01:002010-06-01T14:52:05.656+01:00In 2006 Adrian Shine published his booklet "L...In 2006 Adrian Shine published his booklet "Loch Ness" ISBN 978-0-9553115-0-5. On page 12 there are 2 images produced my the established "image stacking" process. One is a stack of "monster frames", the other is a stack of "Hugh Rowand + boat" frames.<br />Only the desperate can look at either and say "It's not a boat".Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982472466101488997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-26202997902215284052010-05-31T15:19:26.847+01:002010-05-31T15:19:26.847+01:00These Elks(moose) where introduced to the Highland...These Elks(moose) where introduced to the Highlands in 2008. They were the first for 1000 years according to all reports http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/15/wildlife.endangeredspecies<br />It you know of any others in the intervening years I would love to know about them Dale Thanks.Tabitcahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00685620846174596978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-81440187862500898482010-05-31T00:37:20.389+01:002010-05-31T00:37:20.389+01:00Au Contraire, Tabatica: Moose have been repeatedly...Au Contraire, Tabatica: Moose have been repeatedly introduced into Scotland for hunting, notably in the 1800s but again more recently. And when I first posted on Water Horses, I included a photo of a Scottish moose for reference.<br /><br />BUT as I said, I did not consider that the moose theory was adequate to make the amount of displacement shown and my own opinion is that the film shows a Plesiosaur-shaped creature. That may not necessarily even have hung around in the loch for long thereafter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-54017030886432242192010-05-30T19:32:04.523+01:002010-05-30T19:32:04.523+01:00You are completely right. I got sidetracked by the...You are completely right. I got sidetracked by the dog (that's right Jon blame poor Biggles) and forgot to upload them. That has now been remedied. WhoooooopsJon Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467805661081755044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-85646175802625157032010-05-30T16:24:53.770+01:002010-05-30T16:24:53.770+01:00Hi Dale. We do not have moose in the UK so about a...Hi Dale. We do not have moose in the UK so about as likely as the elephant theory.We do have deer. I did scan in the Jaric report for Jon to add to the blog but it hasn't appeared.you can find it here on my blog:http://cryptozoo-oscity.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-tim-dinsdale-film-nessie.html<br />I know Tim believed it was a large creature and I believe it was an animate object, but what is anyone's guess. Why people have sought to discredit it, is again anyone's guess.Thanks as ever for your comment.Tabitcahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00685620846174596978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-55133647515908636652010-05-30T13:29:18.521+01:002010-05-30T13:29:18.521+01:00As soon as the Dinsdale film came out, Ivan Sander...As soon as the Dinsdale film came out, Ivan Sanderson was on the case. He wrote the introduction to the American edition of Dinsdale's book.<br /><br />Ivan Sanderson wrote about the film in his book Investigating the Unexplained shortly after that, in 1972. Beginning Chapter 2 he talks about this film, especially on pages 17-20 and including figure 3. Figure 3 demonstrates quite simply and distinctly why (Drum roll, please) it cannot have been any kind of a boat. And the object submerged while it was on film, as Bauer also specifies.<br /><br />The odd part is, it need not actually have been a plesiosaur to be a large swimming animal in the Loch, but that is what nearly everybody always assumes. And saying that it was a boat is not the only alternative, but that is what nearly everyone always assumes. For my part, I think it represents a large Plesiosaur-shaped creature swimming at a good clip and NOT any kind of a boat. And I find the insistence that it MUST have been a boat when it clearly was not one to be puzzling.<br /><br />I was asked point-blank on one occasion if a moose could show a red-brown hump three feet out of the water and swim at ten miles an hour. I answered truthfully that such a thing could actually happen, going on what is known about mooses swimming. I did not consider that to be an adequate explanation of the Dinsdale film and in fact when I mentioned the discussion to Jon he said it was "best to drop that matter"<br />However I mention that at this juncture just to say that the object shown in the Dinsdale film need NOT have been a boat, and insistance that it MUST be a boat is rather wrong-headed IMHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com