Nessletter - No 084 - 1987

Magazine Overview

Title: NESSLETTER
Issue: NO. 87
Date: October 1987
Publisher: NESS INFORMATION SERVICE
ISSN: 0264-7001
Country: UK
Language: English

This issue of NESSLETTER focuses on 'Operation Deepscan', a significant sonar investigation of Loch Ness conducted in October 1987. The report details the operation, its participants, the media's reaction, and the findings, alongside other related topics concerning the Loch Ness Monster.

DEEPSCAN: The Operation and Its Context

The 'DEEPSCAN' section, authored by Henry H Bauer, provides an in-depth account of the Operation Deepscan. The operation, initially planned for October 1986 but postponed due to bad weather, was significantly expanded for 1987 with more boats and increased publicity. The event garnered considerable media interest, with daily coverage on Cable News Network and segments on British television, including 'Blue Peter'.

Bauer, observing as a member of the press corps, notes the extensive planning and sponsorship involved. Companies like Lowrance Electronics provided sonar equipment and technical expertise, while various firms and organizations offered logistical support, including boats from Caley Cruisers, spare engine parts from Volvo-Penta, fuel from an unnamed oil firm, and transport from Dan-Air. Hotels offered reduced rates, and boat crews were volunteers from the Drake Fellowship and the London Docklands Scouts Project. The cost of the operation, though rumored to be around one million pounds, was largely covered by donations and sponsorships, running on a 'shoestring'.

Adrian Shine, the field leader, had primarily used sonar in his studies of Loch Ness, with patrons including Tony Harmsworth and Ronnie Bremner. For Deepscan, Shine collaborated with Lowrance Electronics, whose engineers, including Darrell Lowrance and David Steensland, were present. John Fenn Associates handled publicity.

Bauer expresses that while the media had been heavily supplied with releases beforehand, the nightly briefings during the operation lacked detailed context, failing to place it within the broader history of Loch Ness investigations. Despite this, practical arrangements for the press were well-managed.

Sonar Findings and Media Reaction

On Friday, October 9, the main sonar sweep began with twenty boats in line, covering a significant portion of the loch's deepest basins. The sweep was conducted with crews using sighting tubes to maintain precise station. Excitement arose with potential contacts, but some trawlers and sailboats disrupted the operation by passing through the sweep line.

At the debriefing, Shine reported three "interestingly large mid-water contacts," each detected by a single boat and unconfirmed by others, suggesting they were moving objects. Sonar charts were distributed, and Darrell Lowrance described the largest signal as stronger than any he had previously seen from such a depth, venturing a comparison to a large shark. Shine, however, refused to speculate, reminding attendees of a recent report of another seal in the loch.

The following day, Saturday, saw a sweep from Fort Augustus back up the loch. Despite only one report of a possible contact from the fleet, the evening debriefing promised something spectacular. A video player, monitors, and a slide projector were set up, with a delay for newly processed tape.

When the video was shown, it was met with disappointment. Shine stated that the support boats had not been carrying underwater cameras, and he downplayed expectations of a "media monster" or "Jurassic reptile." He indicated that new outcrops had been located on the loch bed, which would be investigated. He also displayed a sonar chart showing schools of bait fish.

Shine revealed that other work had been conducted, including the examination of the location where the Academy of Applied Science had obtained its "gargoyle-head" photograph in 1975. He presented underwater footage showing whitish objects and what appeared to be a rocky outcrop. When asked if the "gargoyle-head" was a pile of rocks, Shine publicly stated "Yes," suggesting it was an inanimate object. He hoped this would usher in a new era of investigation focused on careful, controlled, scientific work, free from "Jurassic reptiles" and "media monsters."

The press questions were largely hostile, with Shine clarifying that he was not criticizing the press but reporting what they were told. Questions arose about when the rocky outcrop was discovered and why it wasn't reported earlier. Shine's response about needing to be sure seemed weak, especially given the earlier comment about needing the right lighting and contrast.

Controversies and Criticisms

Concerns were raised about the diver, Dick Rayner, who had been down for about an hour. Regarding the Academy's "flipper photographs," Shine expressed dissatisfaction, stating they had been retouched by magazine editors and were not the same as the originals or computer-enhanced versions. He also had issues with the accompanying sonar charts.

Shine distanced himself from the Operation Deepscan logo, attributing it to American public-relations people and noting he refused to wear it, opting instead for a Lowrance Electronics emblem.

Bremner disagreed with Shine, asserting he had seen Nessie himself and did not fear the monster would be "killed off" or that tourism would suffer. He believed more research was warranted. Darrell Lowrance remained intrigued by the sonar contacts but skeptical, noting that not all of the loch had been swept and hoping for more evidence of creatures. He mentioned a new digital sonar under development.

Bauer describes the end of the operation as "sad" and "anti-climactic," suggesting that an expose had been prepared. He notes that the video shown did not resemble the "gargoyle head," and later reports referred to a tree stump instead of a rocky outcrop. He also points out that many press members lacked context about the Academy's previous work and the history of the "gargoyle head" hypothesis, which had been privately shared for years.

Several individuals, including Heather Cary, Ivor Newby, and Nick Witchell, found the proceedings less than newsworthy, as the idea of the "gargoyle head" being an inanimate object like a cylinder block had been known for years.

Public Relations and Rivalries

One British public relations professional described the press conference as "the worst I've ever attended." A sponsor representative hoped to recoup "eighty percent of the damage done on Saturday night." Many media people perceived Operation Deepscan as a publicity stunt, with some dubbing it "Operation Deep SCAM."

Bauer notes that the press were not given context about previous events, such as a symposium on Nessie in July, or the competitive nature of Nessie hunters and their differing views. He speculates that Dinsdale, whose film is considered strong evidence, may not have been invited to avoid sharing the spotlight.

Operation Deepscan's Accomplishments and Lessons

Lowrance expressed satisfaction with the technical test of their equipment, believing it would benefit other applications and potentially lead to a detailed map of the loch's bottom. Shine had "outcrops" to examine, schools of bait fish to study, and his 1982 sonar contacts to explain. However, Bauer concludes that the operation did not improve the public's understanding of the hunt for Nessie, with the media portraying it as a stunt for the tourist industry, abetted by "crackpots."

Bauer discusses the commercial exploitation of Nessie, noting a drastic change since about 1980 and a "deadly rivalry" among hoteliers in Drumnadrochit. He contrasts the empty rooms at the Loch Ness Lodge with hotels in Inverness charging high rates.

He suggests that cryptozoologists and hoteliers could learn from the operation's less happy aspects. The quest for Nessie presents dilemmas, and attempts to further it can hinder it. Bauer emphasizes that hunters should not argue publicly, as the press and public cannot distinguish among them. Only in cases of definite fraud, like that of Frank Searle, should whistle-blowing occur. Technical disagreements should be argued within the technical community until certainty is achieved.

Bauer concludes that while Shine's opinions about sonar and flipper photos are possible, he has not yet proved anything according to his own "scientific" standards. The explanations for the "gargoyle head" remain unproven, and the public still needs to be convinced that there is something worth searching for, rather than just a myth or a tourist trap.

Other Mentions

Eels: Mr. Hancock mentioned that the British conger eel record had recently been broken (12 feet, 112 lbs). He speculated that if eels of twice that size were in Loch Ness, they would be formidable.

Henry Bauer's Account: The newsletter includes Henry Bauer's account of Operation Deepscan, which is to be enclosed with the next issue.

Steuart Campbell's Note: Steuart Campbell provided a note regarding directions to Boleskin cemetery and Inverfarigaig, and discussed the Ayies sighting, suggesting that data should be assessed for errors and that observers can exaggerate size.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance:

The NESSLETTER consistently covers investigations into the Loch Ness Monster, often presenting detailed accounts of expeditions and the scientific or technical aspects involved. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, dissecting the events, participants' claims, and media coverage. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between genuine investigation and publicity stunts, and a skepticism towards sensationalism while acknowledging the possibility of unexplained phenomena. The publication encourages member contributions and aims to provide a platform for diverse viewpoints within the Nessie research community, while also highlighting rivalries and controversies.