Story of the Loch Ness Monster

Product Information

In 1965 the film was sent to the Joint Air Reconnaissance Centre (JARIC) who studied the film and sent a report to Tim Dinsdale and members of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and in their eyes this was another boost for the film as the report did not condemn the film but substantiated it. As per your invitation not to wait for the second part of this article (“The Sightings Problem” post of 15/10/15), please see below.

I was within 25 yards of the creature when the photograph was taken, I am not sure if the light or my voice frightened it—one or both did. I am not fully satisfied that it was the same creature as seen on Wednesday May 24th, as it was smaller and a different colour. I think both skins were wet or at least damp - one on Friday certainly was. I do not know why I was frightened of it as it reminded me of a docile swan - perhaps it was the power it had at its disposal and the fact it was an unknown quantity. A Review of Robert L. France’s Disentangled: Ethnozoology and Environmental Explanation of the Gloucester Sea Serpent, November 2019 SIR – The bankruptcy of the Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council (report, September 6) is further proof that Labour always demands ever-more money to feed its bureaucracies. One odd comment suggests that since the photo is "obviously a fake", why criticise Burton? The answer is simple, if an argument for or against something is wrong, its fair game. You can't argue something is fake for the wrong reasons. The whole point is sceptical arguments are not as watertight or as trustworthy as some like to think and that has ramifications going forwards (one commenter seems to think this is me being defensive. No, mate, this is me on the offensive!).Okay, there is an immediate problem with this interpretation. We have a circle of stones and we have a monster picture. The impression I get from the photograph is of a body that is not describing a circle but an ellipse where it interfaces with the water. I would suggest you cannot create an elliptical object from a circular base. You will get into all kinds of trouble trying to do that in water only a few inches deep. Looking at the rainfall for June 1960 (when Burton was there), the figure was 78.5mm. That gives a rainfall increase of 70.6mm. Comparing this with other monthly differentials makes it the 41st highest climb in rainfall out of 1000+ data points. That would suggest that Mr. O 'Connor's camp fire was going to be submerged. Dinsdale, T., 1975. Project Water Horse: True Story of the Monster Quest at Loch Ness. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Also, the distortion of the ripples in the picture suggest that it could not have been taken under the claimed conditions, that is, at the distances claimed

Gemmell said the sheer volume of eel DNA surprised him and his team. And, maintaining a straight face, he added: “We don’t know if the eel DNA we are detecting is from a gigantic eel or just many small eels.”

When Monsters come Ashore

Other examples are Sadiq Khan’s administration in London and the government in Wales. Labour cannot manage money – except to insist on more for less. Next they state that between frames 816 and 1440, with the object travelling approximately parallel to the far shore, they suggest the mean speed of 7mph but because of the difficulty of near horizontal photography the speed is likely to be as high as 10mph. Indulging your obsession is one thing, escaping the rat race is another - but there is a lot to be said for waking up to an impossibly beautiful sunrise every day, knowing that you have absolutely nothing to do but follow your own dreams - however absurd they might seem to those who boast a semi-detached, a fleet car and a fitted kitchen. He steps out of his modest four-wheeled home (boldly emblazoned with his one-man company name, Nessie-serry Independent Research), swiftly followed by his four-legged friend, an excitable collie called Tara. You'll see him on TV from time to time, patiently explaining his reasons for giving the unexplained his all. In terms of accepting the evidence that Maurice Burton has proffered in the past, it seems some caution has been urged by researchers. Peter Costello offered the most scathing line when he gave his opinion on this matter of beach evidence: He was smitten and returned the next year, which is when, he says: "I had the misfortune of seeing one of these things with my own eyes."

One of the favourite Loch Ness monster theories is that it is an elasmosaurus or plesiosaur that somehow survived the extinction of the dinosaurs. You do not, after all, abandon a comfortably ordinary lifestyle in Dorset to live in a van that has seen better days on the edge of Loch Ness, in often-brutal weather, unless you are a few pennies short of a pound (he is, but only in the literal sense). You do not, unless you are seriously round the twist, publicise a passionate belief in the existence of the Loch Ness monster. And however deranged you might be, you surely do not spend eight years doing little else but sitting on a beach in the hope that the elusive beast might show you its humps. Or do you?In 1991, when the lure of Loch Ness became too strong to ignore, he gave up his job, sold his house and embarked on full-time monster-watching, summer and winter, rain, shine or driving snow.

Searle attempted to rescue his situation the following year with Nessie: Seven Years in Search of the Monster, and from 1977 produced a quarterly newsletter. This was a period when Loch Ness was a magnet for serious monster hunters, including Adrian Shine, Rupert Rines and Tim Dinsdale. I thought that was obvious. Burton's beach findings story is used as evidence against the O'Connor story by Campbell, Harmsworth and Naish (and no doubt other places). Seventh point rejected. Murray, J., 1897–1903. Bathymetric Survey of Scottish Freshwater Lochs. National Library of Scotland. London: Routledge.Burton, M., 1982. Loch Ness saga: a flurry of foam and spray. New Scientist, 8 July Wikipedia 2008, Loch Ness, 112–113. I believe that on his first visit to the loch Mr Dinsdale saw an object in the water he did not recognise instantly for what it was and because the film, when developed, did not show an easily recognisable object, this film that has been given as the evidence for the last 39 years, really only shows that it is just an ordinary object filmed under bad light conditions.