An underwater camera set up 55 years ago to try and photograph the Loch Ness Monster has been found by accident by a robot submarine.

The ocean-going yellow sub - called Boaty McBoatface - was being put through trials when its propeller snagged the mooring for the 1970s camera system.

It is believed it was lowered 180m (591ft) below the loch’s surface by the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau, a group set up in the 1960s to uncover the existence of Nessie in the waters.

No footage of Nessie has been found on the camera, but one of the submarine’s engineers was able to develop a few images of the loch’s murky waters.

  • a9249@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Someone needs to glue a monster mould to the top of that sub…

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You can’t call a ship a boat. Shippy McShipface would’ve been a different topic. Or maybe Chipper McShipface?

      • eronth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        24 hours ago

        There are humans that are named after other animals (Bear Grylls, Tony Hawk, Michael J Fox). We absolutely could have called it Boaty McBoatface.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No footage of Nessie will ever be found or captured, because in 1991 the dude who started the damn rumor with that one famous photo admitted that it was a hoax. Why people still continue to search for the monster baffles me.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Same reason people think the earth is flat, the moon landing was a hoax, and that vaccines cause autism?

      A lack of critical thinking skills, and general stupidity.

      • lumony@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        A lack of critical thinking skills, and general stupidity.

        And trolling. Don’t forget trolling.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      1991? I took a fake photo of Nessie in 1984, and I’m certain I wasn’t the first.

      • Zachariah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        No footage of Nessie will ever be found … because in 1991 the dude … admitted that it was a hoax.

        • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Yeah, but Nessie has been folklore for longer than such an animal could possibly have lived. I have great great great great grandparents from the area, and it was older than them. People have been faking photographs since the photograph was invented. Before that people painted pictures or did charcoal sketches.

          My point was that the guy didn’t start anything; he just continued the tradition.

      • Distractor@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Personally I’m betting on Nessie having camouflage skills like an octopus, and instead of squirting ink they can create the equivalent of an underwater dust cloud. That would absolutely explain these photos.

        Edit to add: /jk since apparently that wasn’t obvious 🙄

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          21 hours ago

          And it knew to react to an unmoving camera how? It just perfectly puts out its camouflage cloud every time it passes a camera? You realize that makes zero sense, right?

            • fishos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Yeah, but when it’s clearly a hoax and you have someone going “yeah, but still, what if it’s really X?” it makes it really clear how badly our education and mental health systems failed.

              • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                21 hours ago

                Well so long as you’re not ultra into it its fun and w/e. To me its same energy as planning for winning lotto. Yeah it ain’t happen but it will be cool. Its purely distraction in something possibly wonderful. Sometimes I think if the people that go too far just really dont want to come back.

                • fishos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  No, it’s delusional. Writing fictional stories is fine. Trying to warp reality and evidence to fit your fantasy is delusion. “This would be cool…” is not the same as being told why you’re scientifically wrong and then going “but what if it were true anyways because I want to believe?”

                  It’s the same shit with Bigfoot. As more and more “evidence” is debunked and the case becomes more obviously just a mistaken identification at best you get these whack jobs talking about how Bigfoot is a dimension jumping shape shifter. Not because they have any actual evidence, but because “this is the only way to explain why we got zero pictures despite decades of trying”.

                  Imagination is fine. Delusion is not.

              • kux@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                i thought you were playing along with the joke but you really were going “you’re dumb actually and stupid” like you believed it

          • Distractor@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Um, you’re taking my comment way too seriously. I replied to a cartoon picture. I literally just made up a silly explanation that would fit the photos. Please take a deep breath and go touch some grass.

            • fishos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              Oh shut the fuck up. Telling someone to touch grass after spouting your delusion? People like you need to be told to shut up more. We shouldn’t entertain your nonsense. Trying to call it a joke after the fact is the only laughable part.

                • fishos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  Nah, I’m just done with handling ignorance with kid gloves. It’s how we got to the state of the US today.

                  You clearly put forth your unsubstantiated theory that Nessie has active camouflage and it totally explains the murky photos. You took the LACK of evidence and used that as proof of something even more extreme and requiring of even more proof. When asked a very simple question like “well then how would it work with a stationary camera?” suddenly it’s “well I was just playing make believe, you need to touch grass!”

                  Nah, fuck your goal post moving ass.

    • AJ1@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      I had that exact same camera when I was a kid. My favourite part was putting in new flash cubes. Dude when the Kodak Disc came out we were wetting our pants, that thing had INFINITE FLASH

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s the camera my mom used, too. It was super popular, it seems like every family had one.

        Taking pictures was such a different experience in those days, knowing you only had as many pictures as was on the roll (like 20 I think it’s what we bought), and you couldn’t see how they came out until you had them developed.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    Kind of puts a pin in Nessie then, if we can find a small camera lost 55 years ago but not a giant animal.

    • Olap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Dunno about found. I think that requires intent. This is a happy little accident

  • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    i read that at first as “camera to to set up the loch ness monster” and i thought they were trying to frame the loch ness monster of a crime she didn’t commit

  • fishos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    My bad, I forgot we were still on Reddit where nothing is serious and everything is a joke.

  • Link@rentadrunk.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Isn’t it best practice to develop film as soon as possible after taking a picture. Surely the undeveloped picture would have degraded after 55 years?

    • Rose@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically yes, but in favourable condition the film can persist for pretty long time. People have developed films that had been sitting in a camera/cartridge for literally a century and gotten decent results.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Did you see the pictures in the article?

      You’re right, but how bad depends on a lot of factors.