Talk:Papa Stour
Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit
The tower (pic top right): Is it really on Papa Stour - or is it Muckleberry Castle that folly on Vaila from an unusual angle ... ??? Islandhopper 03:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)
I'm fairly sure it can't be Vaila because altitude of shot is wrong. I seem to recall there being a watch tower of some kind on the south coast of Papa Stour, but I can't remember if it looked like that.
Robbie 08:12, 27 August 2007 (MDT)
Contents |
Photos on Papa Stour page
I'm sorry but these photos simply are not Papa Stour. Given that they were taken on a flight from Tingwall to Papa they might well be Vaila. They are definitely not Papa Stour.
- I can't remember the details, but a previous discussion took place about these photos. They were part of a series. I think that at least the first one was positively identified as Papa Stour, can't remember about the second one.
I'll see if I can find the original discussion. Many of the pictures really wracked our brains, because everything looks weird from the air. But by analysing the other pictures, times, and flight path as derived from the other pictures, we ruled Vaila. out.
Robbie 13:09, 21 January 2008 (MST)
I've just remembered. These were the only two pictures on which there was no discussion, as the photographer knew they were Papa. The others were en-route and she didn't know the locations, hence our search and identification. I don't have time tonight to identify the landmarks on the pictures, but I'll look at that as soon as I can. Though having done a quick check of the time stamps on these, and the other pictures. It would appear that the first one was taken on approach to the Papa Stour airstrip, and the second within 1 minute of takeoff.
Robbie 13:31, 21 January 2008 (MST)
Papa photos - second attempt
I've just lost a lot - I'm new to this. Having just dug out an old photo I agree it's not Vaila. I've never flown into Papa Stour. It must look different from that angle. The airstrip lies at the head of Hamna Voe. Approaching from the south one would see the east of the south coast. I just can't believe that is what I'm seeing. I can't fathom the long tang with the arched stack / ruin behind. The jagged stacks don't look like anythng I can recall on Papa. Approaching from the north this would be the north west - as suggested. This looks like nothing on the north coast. The cliffs at Boardie are fairly distinctive. The height of the cliffs and the shape of the stacks is all wrong. Is it possible that the left picture might be the coast of Sandness just after take off. I don't know that coastline at all. I've walked and snapped fairly extensively on Papa. I have views across pretty much all - probably all - the headlands. I really can't believe I've missed this building. That would need a large slice of humble pie. It is very hard to argue with the time stamps, but these photos just do not look like Papa. Looking at the same photos on the photographer's website there is a closer photo of an arch / ruin, with the jagged stacks offshore. This is definitely not on Papa Stour. I know the coastline too well to have missed something so distinctive. Is it possible that all the photos are Sandness, shortly before and after take off? The arch / ruin and the square building are quite distictive. Surely someone can identify them? Also on the photographer's website are the other aerial photos. I think many of these are in the Westerwick area including the 'Rump o' Skeld. This is more a suggestion than an assertion.
- As with eveything, debate is welcome. And as these pictures weren't discussed at the time, anything is possible. Perhaps we read too much into the time stamps.
All the other pictures supplied were identified as Reawick, Skeld, etc..
Having walked a lot of the coast of Papa Stour myself, I can't recall seeing the tower structure, although I know there was some sort of lookout building on the top of the Hill of Fellie, which would be consistent with a shot taken just after take off, and I assumed the Geo in front of it to be Mo Geo.
I'll have more time tomorrow to look into it.. I like a good mystery ;-)
You'll find 3 of the other pictures at this link Talking Pictures#Aerials, where we named the landmarks after identifying them.
We'll get to the bottom of it somehow :-)
Robbie 16:22, 21 January 2008 (MST)
Picture 1, I'm 95% sure is photographed from above West Voe, approx HU173620, altitude approx, 100m. Quida Ness is out of sight at the bottom of the picture. The water seen in the forground is Culla Voe, and the first land is the west coast of Culla Voe with Lamba Ness to the right. If the picture was from 50m higher, Sholma Wick would be visible, before the high ground at the north end of Virda Field. Approximate angle of view would be WNW.
This isn't certain, but very nearly, and based on google earth simulation, plus analysis of topography. The only thing which confused me was the sea break on the coastline, but checking weather archives, the wind at the time of the picture was roughly southerly, hence correct direction for landing, but had been northwest to northerly on the previous day which accounts for sea break.
As I say not certain, so I'd love to have confirmation from somebody with local knowledge of Papa Stour.
Robbie 12:18, 22 January 2008 (MST)
Lamba Ness
Many thanks. It's clear you're taking this very seriously, which I applaud. I looked at the detail on the aerial picture page - very impressive. Lamba Ness is very narrow near the main body of the island and widens - crudely like a light bulb. From the picture I don't get the impression of that shape. The tang appears to start wide and taper, possibly with a curve to the right - east. Lamba Ness doesn't come to point. The angles are horrible deceptive, but I would expected to see Muckle Braestack (east of Lamba Ness) at least - but I can't. I think I'd expect to see some of the stacks west of Lamba Ness. At the next headland, after a smallish bay, there is the arch ( / ruin ?) with the jagged stacks off. I simply cannot reconcile these details - especially looking at the closer photo on Krissie's website - http://www.volldolltoll.de/luftbilder.html . This simply does not look like that part of Papa Stour. The cliffs west of Sholma Wick are higher than appear in the photo - though again the angle is deceptive. I'm pretty sure that there are no dramatic jagged stacks off that headland - and there is no arch / ruin like that there or anywhere else on Papa Stour, The cliffs continue to rise west towards Boardie. I think I'd expect to see an imprssion of that rise and sheer cliffs, even if the angle is from too far south to actually see the cliff face. I think too that from that angle I'd expect too see the Vee Skerries light in the distance, but that is less certain. I can't make a suggestion as to where this is, but I am sure it is nowhere on Papa Stour.
- Well, I'm totally stumped on these pics then... I still think I'm right with that 1st one, so we'll just have to agree to differ, until we can find out for sure where it is. Although the Vee Skerries light, just, wouldn't be visible from that angle, I checked that. Other fact is that the Islander flies at 1000ft on that flight, well they did when I was on it, and both those pictures are taken from well below that altitude. Scheduled flights, even small ones, have very strict rules governing their flights, and as such I would think it is impossible that the aircraft was this near the ground anywhere other than Tingwall and Papa. And I still can't get away from the date stamps on the picture series.
Hopefully somebody will have enough local knowledge or brain power to figure it out :-)
Robbie 21:52, 24 January 2008 (MST)
West from Lamba Ness
I found this useful link. http://www.originart.eu/shetland/west/papastour/025_3.html This a view looking west from Lamba Ness. Note the cliffs at Boardie coming into view in the background. I hope you will agree that it is not and cannot be the same view, even allowing for elevation. It may be my imagiation or sheer wishful thinking, but I think I can see the Vee Skerries light just right of centre on the horizon above the rocks of the headland. I don't assert about the light, but I do strongly suggest that this simply is not the same view as shown on the article page.
Interesting.
I don't have time to look at it further tonight, but I will do tomorrow.
I'm very confused about this. But let's look at the facts which cannot be argued with:
1) Photographer says it is Papa Stour, and since that was her flight destination, I refuse to call her a lier.
2) Time stamps on the pictures indicate that the pictures were taken in Papa Stour.
3) As it was a scheduled flight regulated by CAA laws governing such flights, then it is impossible for the aircraft to have been at such a low altitude anywhere other than Papa Stour.
Taking the above as facts which cannot be argued with. Then the north face of Virda Field is the only place on Papa Stour which has a matching topography. And bearing in mind how confusing an aerial picture can be, compared to a ground picture, I still think I am 95% right, although maybe the viewing angle I suggested is a bit wrong.
Robbie 15:45, 25 January 2008 (MST)
Absolutely definitely not Papa Stour
Seeking local knowledge I sent an email round some of my longer standing fellow members of Shetland Canoe Club. I am reliably informed that both photos are of Foula. This is the stack in the distance - http://www.originart.eu/shetland/west/foula/032_3.html. The headland presumably is Strem Ness, though I can offer no personal corrobaration. This a view of the headland seen from the west - http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=wordsearch&s=item&key=Wczo1OiJmb3VsYSI7&pg=48 This shows the stacks from a similar angle as the aerial shot but from ground level. The structure is a war monument - http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=wordsearch&s=item&key=Wczo1OiJmb3VsYSI7&pg=566 / http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=wordsearch&s=item&key=Wczo1OiJmb3VsYSI7&pg=568 . I trust the debate is now over. These facts are irrefutable. Your facts were errors - not lies - errors. I trust that this website can be corrected to avoid the perpetuation of misinformation. I take this opportunity to apologise for my typing mistakes. I thought I was being careful and checking.
- Well,, what can I say. Hands up,, I was entirely, 100%, wrong.
Very, very sorry for doubting you, and many, many thanks for digging up the truth behind these pictures.
We will correct the site immediately.
I'm also going to make sure that in future, pictures which aren't taken by ourselves are checked for location, etc.
Again, many thanks for your invaluable help in this matter.
Robbie 08:15, 26 January 2008 (MST)
- Well,, what can I say. Hands up,, I was entirely, 100%, wrong.
Thank you
The internet is a great tool. However there is huge scope for error to be taken as truth and perpetuated as such. I am please to have assisted in helping to correct such an error. I note that the photos are gone - haven't checked if they've been shifted to the Foula page -assuming there is one.
