NESSLETTER

Magazine Overview

This issue of NESSLETTER, number 72, dated October 1985, is published by the NESS INFORMATION SERVICE and features articles on a notable aircraft recovery and ongoing debates within the UFO and Loch Ness research communities.

SAD NEWS

The issue begins with sad news regarding the passing of Jim Skerdon, a member of the NIS since 1982, who died of a massive heart attack on September 18th in Dores, Loch Ness. Skerdon, who had been in ill health for some time, was a keen interest in village life and had contributed theories and observations to NESSLETTER. He was remembered for his cheerfulness and his interest in the Loch Ness mystery, spending time watching the loch.

R-ROBERT: Operation to Raise Wellington Bomber

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to the operation to raise the Vickers Wellington bomber, 'R-Robert', from Loch Ness during September 1985. This aircraft is one of only two known to remain from approximately 10,000 built during World War II and had seen active service. It was ditched in Loch Ness on New Year's Eve 1940 after an engine failure, with the pilot managing to eject safely, though one crew member was later killed when his parachute failed.

The aircraft lay at the bottom of the loch for decades until 1976 when Marty Mein located it using sonar equipment. This led to the formation of the Loch Ness Wellington Association and a decision to raise the bomber. The operation involved a team from Herriot Watt University and a professional firm, Oceaneering of Aberdeen. The plan was to use the adapted ferry-boat 'Elian Dush' as the lifting vessel, supported by a 130-foot barge.

Initial attempts on September 17th were hampered by a buckling lifting frame, causing the bomber to drop back to the bottom after being lifted only ten feet. This setback put the operation under time and financial pressure. A local firm, Comarty Firth Engineering, was tasked with redesigning and building a new lifting frame, which was completed and delivered within a tight deadline.

By September 21st, the wings and most of the fuselage were successfully raised. The tail section, which had broken off, was raised the following day. In total, about 85% of the aircraft was recovered, with the nose gun turret being the major missing part. The recovered remains were brought ashore near Lochend Lighthouse for dismantling before being transported to Weybridge, Surrey, for restoration by enthusiasts at British Aerospace. The restored 'R-Robert' is intended for display at the Brooklands vintage aircraft museum, where Sir Barnes Wallis, the designer of the Wellington bombers, first worked.

Inside the plane, several items were found, including a tobacco tin, notepads, radios, a parachute, a flying helmet, and a camera with film. The film was sent to Farnborough for analysis. The operation cost £35,000, but this was significantly reduced by the generosity of the companies involved. An interesting detail noted is that the crane used to lift the aircraft was built at the Krupp factory in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, the same location targeted in the bomber's daylight raid on December 18th, 1939.

BAUER ON CAMPBELL

This section features a letter from Henry Bauer responding to comments made by Steuart Campbell in a previous NESSLETTER (NIS 71) regarding Bauer's review of Binns's book. Bauer aims to clarify issues and encourages discussion based on evidence. He addresses Campbell's points, suggesting that the refusal of his review by some publications does not invalidate his arguments. Bauer questions the significance of minor discrepancies in measurements, such as the width of an object, arguing that either figure supports the case for Nessie. He contrasts his approach with Binns, whose errors he claims slant his arguments unfavorably.

Bauer criticizes Campbell's approach, particularly his willingness to draw firm conclusions without having personally seen the film evidence, calling it an 'exercise in exegesis, not an examination of evidence.' He also disputes Campbell's assertion of a similarity between the Surgeon's photograph and Ian Johnson's photo of an otter's tail, noting that Johnson himself disagreed with Steuart on this point.

Bauer acknowledges his own fallibility and the difficulty of being objective, admitting his review of Binns was influenced by anger at Binns's 'speciousness.' He believes it is reasonable for people not to accept the existence of Nessie due to the lack of compelling proof.

Tim Dinsdale's Film and JARIC Analysis

The article provides a detailed explanation of the analysis of Tim Dinsdale's 1960 film, which showed a large hump in Loch Ness. The film was submitted to JARIC (Joint Air Reconnaissance intelligence Centre UK) in 1965. JARIC calculated the object's size and speed based on its movement across the loch. They estimated the hump to be approximately 13.3 feet long and moving at 6.5 mph. The object was described as solid, black, and approximately triangular, with a base of 5.5 feet. JARIC concluded that the object was likely animate, with a surface shape that would not be angular. They estimated the jump above the surface to be 3 feet, giving the object a cross-section of 6 feet by 5 feet. Bauer agrees with Henry that the exact width is less important than the fact that it was not a boat.

TONY 'DOC' SHIELS

Tony 'Doc' Shiels responds to comments made by Steuart Campbell regarding Henry Bauer and Binns. Shiels finds the 'pompous explications' of Binns and Campbell tiresome. He quotes Ecclesiastes 12:12, 'Of making many books there is no end much study is a weariness of the flesh.' Shiels questions Binns's assertion that Loch Ness photographs are characterized by ambiguity and a failure to provide clear proof, arguing that all photographic evidence for the unknown is inherently ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Further Critique of Binns and Campbell

Shiels continues his critique, addressing Binns's attack on his own Loch Ness photography. Binns implied Shiels took a picture of a motionless 'head and neck' in 1977, which Shiels refutes, stating he took two pictures showing a moving animal. He criticizes Binns for not admitting these photographs were in other publications. Shiels also takes issue with Binns's snobbish reference to his past as a professional Punch and Judy man.

Shiels also points out dishonesty in Binns's book regarding a quote from his wife. Binns implied the quote was about a Loch Ness sighting, but Shiels clarifies it was from a letter describing a possible optical illusion in the River Herford, Cornwall. He explains that at the time, he and his wife thought they might have been hallucinating due to unusual conditions, or witnessing something like the 'Lehn and Schroeder Effect.'

Regarding Steuart Campbell's subjective interpretation of the Hugh Gray photograph, Shiels states that it takes considerable imagination to see it as a dog, suggesting it looks more like a large mollusc. He concludes that both Campbell and Binns discredit photographs by suggesting they are 'hoax' or 'liars.'

WAKE PICTURE?

This short piece reports on a possible monster sighting in the Inverness Courier on October 25th. Lady Innes of Balvenie photographed a line of turbulent water on Loch Ness, which she described as having a clear starting point unlike the wake of a vessel. She believed it was an arm of the loch and that it would take considerable time for the disturbance to reach the shore.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the ongoing investigation into the Loch Ness Monster, the recovery of historical artifacts (the Wellington bomber), and the critical analysis of evidence and research methodologies within the field. The NESSLETTER appears to maintain a stance of presenting different viewpoints and facilitating debate among researchers, while also reporting on significant events and findings. There is a clear emphasis on the scientific interpretation of evidence, with discussions on photographic analysis, sonar data, and the challenges of establishing definitive proof. The editorial tone encourages critical thinking and challenges unsubstantiated claims, as seen in the critiques of Binns and Campbell.