Is this proof of Nessie?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9271075.html
Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
Printable View
Is this proof of Nessie?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9271075.html
Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
What the hey is that? Kind of looks like a whale sharkQuote:
Originally Posted by newyorklily
The commenters there at the newpaper article are having a good time with it. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfire
Funny how all the pics once generally considered genuine are being debunked in the last few years. To me, it is looking like the debunkers are working overtime and the supporters are either not as enthusiastic or the driving forces behind Nessie are not currently active. The debunking seems more 'loud' than persuasive to me.
This "news story" is really just an advertisement for Apple.
Here is the original version from 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...gle-Earth.html
Now the Daily Mail version this week... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ge-Nessie.html
"sponsored content".Quote:
Have Apple's maps found the Loch Ness Monster? ...satellite in the atmosphere was accessed using Apple's satellite map app ...A satellite high in the atmosphere, accessed using Apple's satellite map app, ...The location was just south of Dores, were beamed from Apple's satellite map app and could only be viewed on some iPads and iPhones. ...The club was alerted to the new image by two people who noticed it at the end of last year on satellite pictures used by Apple for its smartphone maps. ...Peter Thain, from Newbiggin by the Sea, Northumberland, also came across the same image through Apple’s satellite map app.
Good find!
Thanks Doc!
I found that recycle by accident. Earlier this week I read the new Daily Mail version of the article. Yesterday while searching for the Daily Mail article to read again, I stumbled across the 2009 Telegraph version.
The articles were so similar, I did not realize they were actually different articles until I was halfway finished.
The only substantial difference between the articles was the seven references to Apple products in the "new" version. :biggrin2: