NESS INFORMATION SERVICE NEWSLETTER

Magazine Overview

This issue of the NESS INFORMATION SERVICE NEWSLETTER, No. 285, dated December 1987, focuses heavily on the passing of Tim Dinsdale, a pivotal figure in Loch Ness research, and provides updates on Operation Deepscan and related controversies.

Tim Dinsdale's Passing and Legacy

The newsletter leads with the sad news of Tim Dinsdale's death on December 14th, 1987, following a massive heart attack. The author, Tony Harmsworth, recounts his personal respect for Dinsdale, whom he met in the early 1970s when Dinsdale served as the field director for one of the Loch Ness Investigation H.Q. expeditions. Harmsworth highlights Dinsdale's simple, sincere presentation style, which impressed many and encouraged them to consider the evidence for themselves. Dinsdale's 1960 film, three books, and numerous lectures are credited with bringing the Loch Ness mystery to a wide audience.

The article emphasizes Dinsdale's dedication, noting his more than fifty private expeditions and his belief that conclusive evidence was within reach. A quote from Dinsdale's 1975 conclusion to 'Project Waterhorse' is featured: "Time is unimportant, and the passage of it can in no way affect the outcome, for where truth is involved, the facts stand up; as indeed the people do who recognise them." The newsletter also mentions Dinsdale's plans for a new expedition in '88, underscoring his enduring commitment. His wife and family are offered condolences.

Tim Dinsdale: An Appreciation

This section further details Dinsdale's impact, stating that his 1960 film was a turning point that rekindled interest in the Loch Ness Monster, offering audiences a glimpse of the incredible. It notes that while some scoffed, many others joined the search, inspired by Dinsdale's quiet persistence and encouragement. He was involved with the Loch Ness and British Underwater Centre (LNIB) expeditions and lectured extensively.

Explanations Regarding Operation Deepscan and the 'Head' Photograph

A significant portion of the newsletter is dedicated to a letter from A.G. Harmsworth, Director of the Loch Ness Centre, responding to points raised by Henry Bauer. Harmsworth clarifies the Loch Ness Centre's position on the 'head' photograph, stating that it is indeed the head and that the Academy made a simple interpretive mistake in 1975 regarding camera placement. He criticizes the method of release of the 'head' material at the press conference, suggesting a low-key handout would have been preferable.

Harmsworth also addresses issues related to exhibitions, refuting the idea that they supported proliferation. He specifically discusses Mr. Skinner's exhibition at The Lodge, detailing issues such as lack of planning permission, misleading advertising, and attempts to film Project equipment without permission. Harmsworth recounts his negative experiences in attempting to foster cooperation with Mr. Skinner, including being told to leave and receiving a solicitor's letter. He notes that Skinner's exhibition faced numerous complaints and its Tourist Board Membership was eventually discontinued.

Harmsworth also explains the accommodation arrangements during Deepscan, highlighting that while some journalists and staff were accommodated through a 'pool' system with hotels charging the same sum, The Lodge charged full price. He states that his position as accommodation coordinator was impossible due to these issues.

Doug Macfarlane's Deepscan Account and Future Plans

Doug Macfarlane provides an account of his trip to Loch Ness during his son's mid-term holiday in October 1987, coinciding with the final stages of Operation Deepscan. He describes an incident where he broke a window with his hand while preparing their caravan. Upon arrival, he missed the Saturday news conference but spoke with Dave Steensland, a Lowrance engineer, about his soundings and large targets, including one from Loch Morar.

Macfarlane notes that the Deepscan team appeared demoralized, with Adrian having "blown it" according to some associates. He plans to employ new search methods to overcome the limitations of sonar and echo sounders. He also mentions meeting Ivor Newby and Nick Witchell. Doug and his son Alan conducted their own search using a dingy from Temple Pier, finding a submerged object identified as four 200-watt light bulbs tethered to a wreck, likely background lights for the strobe camera. They continued underwater searches in the northern basin.

Macfarlane reports that Adrian spent little time on his latest targets, focusing instead on underwater bores and cross-loch research. Daren Lowrance, president of Lowrance, commented on the size of the targets, describing them as smaller than hoped for, comparable to a large Grouper, seal, or shark, but not a whale. The bulk of the Deepscan operation concluded on Friday and Saturday, with some boats experiencing breakdowns.

Other Research and Observations

Macfarlane also discusses his observations of the underwater TV camera used by Adrian, an Osprey unit costing $50,000. He recounts an incident where Dick Raynor filmed a tree stump identical to the Bob Rines' Gargoyle Head photograph, which Ivor Newby believes is the same object. Macfarlane notes that while he has reservations about the 'Gargoyle Photograph', he was more satisfied with 'Flipper Pictures'.

Macfarlane has a variety of new ideas for future research and has begun work on his first project, the details of which he will not disclose until results are obtained. He has purchased a new car, a metallic green Renault 20, to aid in towing his caravan. He concludes by stating that 1987 was a memorable year, and although Deepscan did not yield conclusive results, the Swiftech statement about 25-foot plus sizing aligns with earlier American sounder estimates, potentially indicating a medium-sized beast.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The newsletter consistently highlights the ongoing search for the Loch Ness Monster, emphasizing the importance of evidence, personal accounts, and dedicated research. There is a clear editorial stance supporting rigorous investigation and a critical approach to claims, as evidenced by the detailed explanations and rebuttals presented. The passing of Tim Dinsdale is treated with great respect, underscoring his significant role in the field. The newsletter also addresses controversies and differing viewpoints within the research community, particularly concerning evidence interpretation and exhibition practices.