Nessletter - No 076 - 1986

Magazine Overview

This issue of NESSLETTER, published by NESS INFORMATION SERVICE in June 1986, is primarily a collection of correspondence and analysis related to Loch Ness Monster investigations. The ISSN is 0264-7001. The content focuses on eyewitness accounts, photographic and video evidence, and the ongoing debates among researchers.

James Baldwin's Letter

The issue opens with a letter from James Baldwin, dated from Hong Kong where he is now practicing law after passing his solicitor's exams. He thanks the recipient for a belated thank you letter and recounts his visit to Loch Ness with a friend, Andrew. They camped wild near the 'horseshoe scree' and observed the loch from various vantage points, including Fort Augustus, Invermoriston Bay, Abriachan Pier, Lower Foyers, Dores, and the shore below Castle Urquhart. They witnessed salmon jumping offshore at Abriachan for about two hours. Baldwin also shares news of a potential NIS meeting, noting that many respondents were encouraging, with Roger Acraman offering his place for such an event.

Baldwin then relays a statement from an eyewitness, Mr. Scobie, who had a sighting on February 1st, approximately four years prior (1981 or 1982). Scobie was driving along the A82 towards Inverness and saw a head and neck about 25-50 yards offshore from Achnahannet Field. He described it as reptilian, with a head like a snake on a neck about 12 inches thick. He stated the head was about three feet above the water and, though details were unclear due to distance (about a quarter of a mile), it was unlike anything he had seen in his 46 years of living in the area, including deer or birds. He noted salmon were running at the time. The head and neck moved towards the shore and then dived, followed by a large white foaming disturbance, which he believed was the body submerging. Scobie, who had previously been skeptical, now believed in the monster.

Baldwin comments on Scobie's statement, noting the lack of weather or loch surface condition details. He also provides context about Achnahannet Field, mentioning it was the site of the old Loch Ness Investigation H.Q. and describing the terrain and visibility from the road, suggesting the shoreline is obscured by trees and hillside.

Eyewitness Account of Robert Heaton

Baldwin continues by suggesting that Mr. Scobie's estimate of 25-50 yards offshore might be closer to 75-100 yards, accounting for trees obscuring the view. He then recounts a story told to him by Mr. Scobie about a friend, Robert Heaton, an engineer at the Hydro Power station in Glen Moriston. Heaton, who regularly fished the loch, had his own experience while fishing in a boat near the mouth of the River Moriston. He saw a long serpentine head and neck very close to his boat, estimating the body length at about thirty feet, with two flipper-like appendages. Heaton was greatly frightened and did not stop fishing immediately, nor did he visit Mr. Scobie's house that day. He was visibly shaken and reportedly stopped fishing on the loch for some time. Heaton is now said to be working on Orkney.

Baldwin acknowledges that this account is hearsay and has unanswered questions, but finds it interesting that such stories continue to emerge. He speculates on which river mouth (Oich, Tarff, or Moriston) Heaton might have been referring to. He also mentions a similar account from around 1907, where a Mr. McLeod observed a large creature, 30-40 feet long with an eel-like head and tapering tail, at the mouth of a river. Baldwin concludes that neither of these accounts is conclusive on its own but would require explanation by known phenomena.

Erik Beckjord's Retraction and Analysis

Erik Beckjord writes with further comments on Steuart Campbell's article about the Wilson photograph (NIS 73/4). He recommends readers consult Campbell's original article in the British Journal of Photography (4/84). Beckjord disputes Campbell's trigonometry and camera angle of depression, suggesting a 10-degree angle instead of Campbell's 18.8 degrees. He argues that even with Campbell's angle, the calculated otter tail length of 29 inches is far outside the range for loch otters. Beckjord also questions the description of the tail as drooped rather than kinky and the suggestion of horns or ears being due to background alignment, citing other photos (Shiel's 1977, Rines' 1975) that show pointed peaks or actual horns.

Beckjord then delves into the complexity of angles, height, and distance in photographic analysis. He argues that a smaller depression angle, like his suggested 10 degrees, would imply a greater distance to the object and a larger object size than Campbell's calculations. He also notes that higher camera positions increase apparent object size, while lower positions decrease it. He questions Wilson's camera height and angle, noting that the 1978 Ordinance map shows various heights available along the A82 route between Invermoriston and Alltsigh. He concludes that Wilson's image would be greater than 29 inches if he wasn't at a specific low spot, and the distance would be greater than Campbell's estimate.

Beckjord criticizes Campbell for rushing to judgment, dismissing other photos, and suggesting an oversized otter tail. He suggests Campbell needs to reconsider his conclusions.

In a subsequent section, Beckjord retracts his earlier claim of capturing Nessie on his 1983 video-tape. He explains that after using a higher-resolution video recorder and analyzing wildlife films of geese taking flight, he realized the vee-shaped splash at the end of his video was likely made by a bird running on the water to take off. He notes the objects in his video were white, about the size of a swimming dog's head, and seemed to disappear intermittently, which he now attributes to VHS resolution limitations rather than the objects themselves. He acknowledges that Tony Harmsworth might have been correct in his initial assessment. Beckjord still believes continuous video taping is a viable method and encourages other researchers to use it. He mentions having a 16mm color film from the Achnahannet area in August 1983 that shows odd surface splashes which might still be useful.

The editor praises Beckjord for his honesty in retracting his claim and emphasizes the importance of careful analysis before presenting evidence, referencing a similar misleading sighting filmed by the Loch Ness Investigation in the late 1960s.

Steuart Campbell's Response

Steuart Campbell responds to comments made in NIS75. He clarifies that since 1984, when he was commissioned to write his book, he has actively sought out witnesses, although he only found the Boyds on his early visits. He denies telling people he had no real interest in eyewitnesses, but states that if an account is written down, a personal interview serves little purpose. He disagrees with this approach, arguing that interviewing a person can provide insight into their experience and character, helping to determine if they are mistaken or perpetrating a hoax.

Campbell also discusses his attempts to interview film and photograph takers, with limited success. He mentions tracing C. Idle, who did not respond, speaking to Renzo Serafini without gaining new information, and A. Wilkins, who provided no photographs. He also notes Bob Rines was unhelpful and Tim Dinsdale never answered his letters. Campbell states he has never said eyewitnesses are not relevant, but considers visual perception and memory unreliable. He defends his response to not being able to view the Dinsdale film as unscientific, stating he would have examined it if he had access.

Campbell addresses the Dinsdale film analysis, stating that JARIC's speed calculations were made between frames 1 and 384 (16 seconds), within the first winding of the camera, and not based on the entire exposed film. He believes this is a point of disagreement between himself and Tim Dinsdale. Regarding Dinsdale's height above the loch when filming, Campbell still maintains that the figure of 300 feet used by JARIC is incorrect, and that Tim had calculated his height above loch level from an OS marker, allowing for the difference between loch and sea level. Campbell asserts that his evidence supports a boat hypothesis and offers no basis for other hypotheses.

Books Etc.

The