RETURN TO LOCH NESS

What remains is a basic analysis of the photo. Here's the detail zoomed and contrast-enhanced. What I could only see as an elongated dark shape with bare eyes, now has a more identifiable form, with a detail that looks like a long neck and a small head. The vertical stroke in the middle is a raindrop.

Based only on the photograph, you might think the dark spot is just a shadow of the waves, just ordinary variation in the wavy water surface (well, you really have to force it). The following image sequence proves otherwise.

1. The photo is converted into grayscale with slight contrast enhancement.

2. A layer is created with lots of gaussian blurring, revealing the overall darkness in different areas.

3. The negative of the blurred layer is used to adjust the darkness of the original image, to get the overall luminosity more even.

4. Now it's fine to dramatically increase the contrast, without the darker areas turning black and lighter areas turning white. What remains, is a contrast-enhanced image, with all details visible. As you can see, the "creature" in the middle clearly stands out from the rest of the picture. You can also see the raindrops that are close to the camera (one overlapping the creature).

The second photo, processed in the same way. Is there something after all?

DETERMING THE SIZE

The most exciting part is left. Is it possible to determine the actual size of the detail? Knowing the location and the fact that the photo was shot with the maximum zoom of my camera, yes it is. I measured the angle of vision for the max zoom and it turned out to be pretty accurately 17 degrees. Based on a detailed map I found in the net, the approximate distance between the target and me was 850 m average (also including the added distance caused by height).

This map shows the paths I followed. The path that runs directly westward from Alltsigh, up the mountain, is the wrong way that leads to a dead end. The red X marks the place where I took the photo, the black X the rough position of the target (distance 750 - 900 metres).

With this information it's possible to determine the width of the area that is visible in the photo, which is roughly 250 m. Since the length of the dark figure in the middle is 0,045 times the width of the whole picture, it's real life length is then 11 meters.

Based on most of the sightings, this is in the correct size range for Nessie, but certainly out of range for any eale, seal or deer. And this is what makes this photo valuable. It's shot from a great distance and so it doesn't reveal much detail, but unlike other shots taken from a lower angle at the shore, this one shows the animal as a whole - not just the neck and head.

Actually the distance adds more wonder to my experience. Considering how small and faint detail in the dull gray scene the object was, how could I have noticed it instantly without some sort of "telepathic connection" or guidance? It's a pity I can't describe more convincinly how my eyes were just automatically fixed on it.

The steep viewing angle also made it much easier to determine how far from the shore the animal was swimming. Even with the error marginal of 200 m, the animal is between 9 and 12,5 m in length, so it doesn't really make much difference in terms of the conclusion.

What is the conclusion then? If you don't believe my story, but you think the photo is either a fake or displays a stone or a log underwater, then it's not worth much. But if you do take the story as real and you accept the target was in motion - and not just in any motion but actually making two turns on its way - then what we have here is an animal that is at least 9 meters long. (I think we can rule out a water current, based on the shape of the figure.) So it's certainly something that doesn't belong to the regular animal kingdom of this region. It's something else. Is it a whale? A giant shark? A massive crocodile?

For me, considering the amazing guidance I was under, there is not much doubt. I can't say what kind of animal it is or if it's even completely physical. But I was taken there to see it.

Martin Keitel, 15 Nov, 2004

Continue...