Nessletter

Magazine Overview

Nessletter No. 12, published in December 1975 by Ness Information Service, focuses on the 'Edinburgh Symposium' and the presentation of evidence regarding unidentified animals, primarily concerning the Loch Ness phenomenon. The issue details the cancellation of a planned symposium in Edinburgh and a subsequent, successful meeting held at the House of Commons.

The Edinburgh Symposium Cancellation

The issue begins by explaining the cancellation of a symposium intended to present and review past evidence for the existence of unidentified animals in Loch Ness. Initially proposed by Sir Peter Scott, the local organization was accepted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in association with Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt Universities. The plan was for the first day to involve evidence submission to a restricted scientific audience, followed by an agreed press release. However, recent wide publicity from participants on both sides of the Atlantic, contrary to this understanding, led the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the associated universities to conclude that a useful or impartial discussion could not take place. Consequently, they withdrew their association with the meetings scheduled for December 9th and 10th.

A spokesman was reported in the press stating that an open mind about the evidence remained, and the withdrawal did not mean university experts would not attend. Despite the cancellation, a three-hour meeting was held on December 10th at the House of Commons, facilitated by David James M.P.

Meeting at the House of Commons

The author was privileged to attend the meeting at the House of Commons, describing it as impressive, with experts presenting evidence and explaining equipment. The meeting began with Lord Craigton, followed by Norman Collins, David James, and Sir Peter Scott, who provided a history of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. Dr. Robert Rines then introduced the Academy of Applied Science and its team, who developed the equipment used in Loch Ness.

Dr. Rines presented photographs taken in August 1972, including two 'flipper' pictures taken a short time apart showing a similar shape, and a Raytheon Sonar chart indicating something very large. The enhancing process used on the pictures was also explained. He then showed photographs from June 20th, 1975, taken with an attempt to reduce light reflection. These pictures had better definition without enhancement and showed the camera pointing about 30 degrees above horizontal.

Analysis of Photographic Evidence

Page 2 continues the description of the 1975 photographs. One showed the hull of a boat, while two new pictures displayed the first being the head and neck, and the second a close view of the head, described as reddish in colour with roughness and projections. The author noted a definite symmetry but found it difficult to make out details. These 1975 pictures were shown without enhancement, suggesting they would improve with it.

Following the photographic presentation, Sir Peter Scott introduced zoologists Dr. G.R. Zug (Smithsonian Institution) and Dr. J. McGowan (Royal Ontario Museum). Both spoke in favor of accepting the evidence, clarifying they were expressing personal opinions. The issue also mentions Tim Dinsdale's film and personal accounts from Mr. Lowrie and Mr. Wilkins.

David James, Richard Fitter, and Sir Peter Scott discussed conservation, with Sir Peter Scott explaining the scientific name Nessiteras rhombopteryx, noting its necessity due to a pending conservation bill.

Scientific Statements and Opinions

Page 4 presents summary statements from scientists who studied the 1972-1975 underwater sonar and photographic results. G.R. Zug, Ph.D. (Smithsonian Institution), stated his personal opinion that the data suggested the presence of large animals, but it was insufficient for identification. He suggested the evidence should encourage research and remove the stigma from scientists investigating the phenomena.

Harold E. Edgerton (MIT) and Charles W. Wyckoff (Applied Photo Sciences, Inc.) provided an opinion on the 1972 photographs, estimating the flipper-like structure's length at 6 to 8 feet, but no less than 4 feet.

C. McGowan, Ph.D. (Royal Ontario Museum), stated he had no reason to doubt the investigators' integrity and was satisfied there was sufficient evidence to support an unexplained phenomenon of considerable interest, suggesting the presence of large aquatic animals. He recommended a consolidated inter-disciplinary research effort and steps to protect against irresponsible activities.

Prof. Roy Mackal (University of Chicago) judged that some pictures corroborated earlier evidence and substantiated the existence of large aquatic animals. He described two photographs showing 'flipper-like' objects and a third showing an animal's upper body, head, and neck. Based on ten years of study, he believed the evidence merits serious consideration and that preservation and conservation of these animals are crucial.

Peter Scott (Chairman, Survival Service Commission, IUCN) stated that the underwater photographs taken by Dr. Robert Rines' team seemed to show parts of an animal, facilitating conservation measures. He found the evidence left no doubt in his mind that large animals exist in Loch Ness.

A. W. Crompton (Harvard University) found the evidence intriguing and suggestive of a large aquatic animal, recommending more intensive investigations. He cited photographs suggestive of an appendage and a 'head' on a thick neck.

Alan Gillespie (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) reviewed the 1975 photographs, noting they supported the belief in a large aquatic animal. He found the images re-confirmed the animate image from 1972, reinforced by computer enhancement. He could not assign a name to the creature but believed the evidence indicated an animate object with large appendages and a long neck and head or tail. He emphasized there was no evidence of fraud, models, toys, algae, sediment, or gas bubbles.

David B. Stone, Henry Lyman, and John H. Prescott (New England Aquarium) stressed the need for action to protect the animal and its environment from direct and indirect human impacts, such as pollution and increased boat traffic, to prevent extinction and allow for further learning.

Odds and Ends

The 'Odds and Ends' section notes that a Sunday paper used the 'Nessie' coverage for a 'win a holiday' competition, lamenting the press's lack of seriousness. It also mentions news of a strange sighting in Loch Lochy and practical travel information about new bridges and roads in the West Coast of Scotland. The section concludes with a reminder about subscription renewals for 1976, with a price increase.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the ongoing investigation into the Loch Ness phenomenon, with a focus on presenting and analyzing photographic and sonar evidence. There is a clear emphasis on the scientific community's engagement with the evidence, ranging from personal opinions to formal statements. A strong undercurrent throughout the issue is the importance of conservation and the need for responsible scientific inquiry, urging protection for the potential animals and their environment. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious optimism regarding the evidence, advocating for continued research and conservation efforts while acknowledging the challenges in definitively identifying the creature.