NESSLETTER

Magazine Overview

Title: NESSLETTER
Issue: NO 78
Volume: OCTOBER 1986
Publisher: NESS INFORMATION SERVICE
ISSN: 0264-7001
Date: October 1986

This issue of the Nessletter focuses on sonar investigations in Loch Ness, a remarkable discovery of a potential sea serpent in Gambia, and ongoing debates about the interpretation of photographic evidence related to the Loch Ness Monster.

Sonar Operations in Loch Ness

The lead article details the use of sonar in Loch Ness, noting that while it has been a useful tool, its results have often been controversial and difficult to reproduce. The Loch Ness & Morar Project has primarily used sonar and has gained significant experience. In 1982, they logged 40 unexplained strong targets at great depth in the central basins.

For the current season (1986), the Project planned a major sonar-curtain search involving multiple sonar units deployed from a formation of surface vessels. The first phase of this operation took place in the second week of October 1986. Ten vessels were made available by Mr. Jim Hogan, proprietor of Caley Cruisers, who has a long-standing interest in the research. The sonar equipment was supplied by Swiftech Ltd., a major distributor of electronic products, who provided their more powerful and sophisticated x-16 and z-15 echo sounders. Two experts from Swiftech assisted during the operation. The boats were crewed by Project members, with assistance from the Sea Scout troop and Hamish Macdonald from the Abbey School. The Loch Ness Exhibition Centre provided administrative support, and the effort was financially backed by Tony Harmsworth of Searchglen Ltd., through a royalty agreement.

Unfortunately, the expedition was cut short by adverse weather. Starting from Dochgarroch, the vessels moved along Loch Dochfour and into the northern end of Loch Ness at Lochend. Despite fine weather initially, strong equinoctial gales made the loch very rough. Mrs. Betty Gallagher, Press Liaison Officer, stated she had never seen the loch so rough. Adrian Shine, field leader, judged conditions too bad to proceed further along the loch. Despite being curtailed, the operation yielded valuable data and experience. The sea scouts demonstrated capability in handling the cruisers and monitoring the sonars. The Lowrance experts were impressed with the equipment's performance and the loch's characteristics, as well as the severe weather.

Plans are underway for another, larger sweep next year, potentially involving up to 40 craft.

Other Reports

Betty Gallagher also reported on a photograph mentioned in the previous Nessletter, which showed only a dark shape on the surface, too indistinct for identification. Additionally, she mentioned a possible sighting in early June by Brian O'Brian, a hotel manager from Drumnadrochit. While on a hillside above Strong Point, he saw an object resembling a large seal briefly appear just beyond Urquhart Bay. He noted it did not behave like a typical seal and did not re-appear. The report also touches on extensive seal activity in the lower reaches of the River Ness.

Gambian Sea-Serpent

This section details an investigation into a mysterious sea creature found washed up dead on a Gambian beach in June 1983. Karl Shuker, a professional zoologist and cryptozoologist, received information from the discoverer, Mr. Owen Burnham, a keen wildlife observer familiar with the region's fauna. Shuker is certain the creature fits no known living species but closely resembles certain fossil creatures.

Unlike typical beached carcasses, this one was virtually intact, with only one hind flipper partially missing and no external decomposition, preserving its morphology. Mr. Burnham sent a letter and diagram to 'BBC Wildlife' magazine in May 1986, appealing for assistance in identification. He had previously contacted other authorities who suggested it might be a Beaked Whale or Dolphin, despite these not possessing hind limbs.

Shuker's detailed investigation, including comprehensive descriptions and answers to his questions, led him to examine various possibilities. He concluded that the creature's features, when compared to the entire range of known living and fossil creatures, most closely resembled extinct reptilian groups like plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, thalattosuchians, and ichthyosaurs, which have been extinct for around seventy million years. Specifically, the pliosaurs, with their short necks and elongated heads, present a possible solution. Giant pliosaurs could reach 40 feet, but most were around 15-18 feet long.

Shuker's comparison table showed two equal winners with 89.3% correspondence: a pliosaur and a thalattosuchian. He states, "Thus, whichever way it is presented or viewed, the evidence available yields the same stunning yet unequivocal conclusion - the Gambian sea serpent most closely resembled organisms believed to have become extinct seventy million years ago!"

Shuker addresses common arguments against the possibility of such creatures existing today. He concludes that without physical remains for scientific examination, the identity remains a theory, but the discovery renews hope that the oceans hold undiscovered or relict species.

Creature Description

The creature was approximately 10 feet long, with a tail 4-5 feet long. Its head was elongate, with long, thin jaws containing eighty sharp, conical teeth, similar to a barracuda's but whiter and thicker. The brow was slightly domed, and the eyes were small, brown, and not protruding. Nostrils appeared to be at the tip of the jaws. The body lacked a dorsal fin and had two pairs of solid, paddle-shaped limbs of equal size, without toes or claws. The skin was smooth, dark brown above and white below. The abdomen showed a lesion revealing whitish digestive tract and fatty tissue. The tail was pointed and round in section, with no evidence of flukes.

Questions remain regarding the discrepancy in total length measurements, the lack of photographs, and the absence of tissue samples.

Steuart Campbell's Response

This section features a letter from Steuart Campbell responding to comments made by Erik Beckjord in a previous Nessletter (NIS 76). Campbell addresses Beckjord's points regarding trigonometry and the interpretation of photographs, particularly the Wilson photograph.

Campbell states that while Beckjord has grasped the trigonometry, he now disputes the angle of view. Campbell has drawn ellipses for angles of 10 and 19 degrees and argues that a comparison with the Wilson photograph shows the ripple rings are not viewed at a 10-degree angle. He also disputes Beckjord's method of determining angles from the 'length of the reflection on the water,' questioning if Beckjord is questioning Dinsdale's drawing.

Campbell asserts that Erik chose the 10-degree angle arbitrarily and prefers to stick to the evidence. He also discusses the effect of camera height above water on object size, noting that while Erik seems not to notice, he selected 10m as the probable camera height, but it could be less if Wilson stood closer to the shore.

Wilson Photograph Analysis

Campbell then addresses the Wilson photograph, suggesting that the tail length is 0.74m, which falls within the range of observed otter tail lengths. He describes the curve of the object as smooth and natural, suggesting it is angled away from the camera, making the curve appear sharper. He withdraws his earlier suggestion of the tail being 'nipped bare' or broken.

He dismisses Erik's comparison of the Wilson photograph with the 1977 Shiel's pictures, stating that one doubtful photograph cannot be used to interpret another and that there is no evidence the photographs show the same subject. He calls Shiel's picture an 'obvious fake' and Rines's 1975 pictures 'bottom debris,' while the Smith film appears to show a manipulated log or post.

Campbell also challenges Erik's sixth point regarding trees between the road and shore, stating that felling does not occur and that old maps show a similar tree pattern. He argues that even without trees in 1924, trigonometric analysis shows the Wilson photograph could not have been taken from 30m above the water in that area. Campbell questions Erik's approach, suggesting a lack of comprehension of the method or willingness to examine the evidence.

Dinsdale Film and Tim's Height

Steuart moves on to comments about the Dinsdale film. He reiterates the known facts about Tim's height above Loch Ness when filming. A report from November 1965 details how Tim used an A.B.S.L. Spot Height (291 feet) to estimate his filming position as approximately 60 feet higher. This has been re-affirmed by recent correspondence and conversations with Tim.

Campbell notes that Steuart seems unable to accept Tim's explanation for his filming height of 300ft. He points out that Steuart relies on a sketch from Tim's book, 'Loch Ness Monster,' which is not a scale drawing and not intended for accurate measurements. Steuart's analysis of the Wilson object as an otter's tail, rather than a head and neck, is also discussed. Campbell finds it strange that Steuart seizes on the sketch for his calculations but dismisses Tim's explanation of his filming height. He questions why Steuart's original analysis of the photograph did not reveal the possibility of the tail pointing away from the camera, which would create a sharper curve.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Nessletter consistently covers sonar research, photographic analysis, and the ongoing search for evidence of unknown or relict species, particularly concerning Loch Ness and other aquatic mysteries. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, presenting various viewpoints and evidence while encouraging further research and discussion. The publication also highlights the challenges and controversies inherent in such investigations, from adverse weather conditions affecting expeditions to the subjective interpretation of photographic and sonar data. The discovery of the Gambian sea serpent is presented as a significant event that bolsters the possibility of undiscovered or surviving ancient species, renewing hope in the field of cryptozoology.