Nessletter - No 067 - 1984

Magazine Overview

Title: NESSLETTER
Issue: 67
Date: December 1984
Publisher: NESS INFORMATION SERVICE
ISSN: 0264-7001
Country: UK

Main Content

Letter from Tony 'Doc' Shiels

This issue features a detailed letter from Tony 'Doc' Shiels responding to Tony Harmsworth's assessment of Adrian Shine's work concerning the Loch Ness Monster. Shiels expresses his disagreement with Shine's apparent dismissal of most evidence as 'inconclusive' based on the belief that the creature rarely surfaces. Shiels argues that such an attitude is unscientific and that even 'inconclusive' evidence should be considered.

He addresses the differences noted in photographs of the creature, likening it to how different parts of a person's body look different in separate photos. Shiels, a self-proclaimed sceptic, emphasizes that in the phenomenal world, no truth is absolute. He also challenges Harmsworth's statement about needing '100% sure' sonar results before investing heavily, questioning how a sceptic can be so certain.

Shiels clarifies his own position, stating that in NIS 63, he did not push 'paranormal' aspects but rather advocated for considering 'ALL aspects of the beastie, no matter how bizarre and impossible-seeming... should be considered and investigated'. He expresses admiration for the work of Adrian Shine and Tony Harmsworth, despite potential disagreements on certain aspects of the Loch Ness enigma.

Shiels discusses his own 1977 photographs, which have been labeled 'inconclusive' or 'bogus'. He maintains his right to have faith in his own observations, describing the photographed object as an unusual animal, possibly a large coleoid cephalopod related to the giant squid, Architeuthis. He believes the photographed part was its proboscis, not its head and neck.

He also comments on the 'Project' considering a move to Loch Morar for final proof, finding it strange after groundwork at Loch Ness. Shiels points out that different bodies of water are distinct, and evidence from one cannot automatically prove existence in another, though it could strengthen the case for continued work at Morar.

Flipper Pictures Controversy

The issue includes a discussion about an article in *Discover* magazine's September 1984 issue titled 'The (Retouched) Loch Ness Monster'. This article, by Rikki Razdan and Alan Kielar, reportedly analyzed data from the Iscan 1983 expedition and other sources, attributing many sightings to gas bubbles, debris, sonar errors, or fish schools.

However, the *Discover* article focused on the famous computer-enhanced 'flipper' pictures produced by Rob Rines and the Academy of Applied Sciences in 1972. These pictures, showing a rhomboid-shaped appendage resembling a flipper, had convinced many people of the creature's existence. The *Discover* article suggested that Rines used a dowser to locate the objects and that the sonar tracings resembled boat wakes. It also claimed that computer enhancement by Alan Gillespie of JPL resulted in grainy, indistinct images, and that the published pictures were retouched.

Charles Wyckoff, in a letter to *Discover*'s editor Henry Grunwald, refutes these claims. Wyckoff states that the Academy of Applied Science has never produced or released 'JPL computer enhanced photographs' with retouching, and that Robert H. Rines was not involved in any retouching. He explains that the original 1972 film transparencies were examined and led to the descriptions of the appendage. Wyckoff clarifies that subsequent versions were printed in newspapers and magazines with 'retouching' by photographic departments, and that by the time *Technology Review* published an article in 1976, photographic copies had been made of versions enhanced by two techniques: a composite of the original transparency with JPL computer-enhanced digital reconstructions, and a photographic contrast enhancement of the original film.

Wyckoff criticizes the *Discover* article for misrepresenting his conversation, creating false impressions, and for its lack of research. He points out that the original unenhanced Academy/Rines pictures already show the objects, and enhancements only make shapes more conspicuous. He also notes that the correspondents from *Discover* refused an invitation from the Academy to review the original films and evidence.

Loch Sheldrake Incident

Tim Denesha of Buffalo, New York, sent a cutting from the Buffalo News about an incident at Loch Sheldrake, near Middletown. In June 1984, eight people claimed to have seen a large, dark object moving beneath the surface of the lake at about 20 mph, creating a significant wake. This report allegedly caused a 75% decline in boating business, with the owner blaming the 'monster' report.

Joel Efrein, owner of the Loch Sheldrake Beach and Tennis club, arranged for scuba divers to investigate, but they found nothing due to the dark, cold water. Efrein plans further sonar and aerial investigations. Local speculation suggests that schools of eels might be responsible for the reports. The article notes the unusual use of the term 'loch' in America.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The NESSLETTER consistently engages with ongoing debates and research surrounding the Loch Ness Monster. This issue highlights a critical examination of scientific methodology, the interpretation of evidence (particularly photographic), and the potential for bias in research. The editorial stance appears to favor open discussion and thorough investigation, while also defending the validity of eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence against what it perceives as overly skeptical or dismissive attitudes. The publication also addresses specific controversies, such as the 'flipper' pictures, aiming to provide clarification and counter what it views as misrepresentations in other media.