Nessletter - No 090 - 1988

Magazine Overview

This issue of the Ness Information Service Nessletter, No. 90, dated October 1988, is primarily concerned with the ongoing debate and investigation surrounding the Loch Ness Monster. The publication, with ISSN 0264-7001, is edited by R. R. Hepple and focuses on analyzing eyewitness accounts and scientific theories related to the phenomenon.

Erik Beckjord's Investigation and Critique of Campbell

The issue opens with an account from Erik Beckjord, who had been investigating at Loch Ness. Beckjord expresses skepticism about Steuart Campbell's theory that the 'water-horse' legends are merely reflections of animals drinking from the loch, deeming it 'patently absurd.' He argues that such reflections would only be visible on the water's surface and not inland, and that Highlanders would not mistake a reflection for a real beast. Beckjord also refutes Campbell's claim that photos showing a snake-like head and neck are the result of boat wakes, stating that such a neck is unlike any wake. He asserts that witnesses are generally reliable when they state no wakes were present.

Beckjord further criticizes Campbell's book, pointing out an error regarding Tim Dinsdale's filming. Campbell suggested Dinsdale indicated white markings on the monster's throat and cheeks, but Beckjord clarifies that Dinsdale only filmed a hump and did not claim to have seen the head or neck. He notes that while Campbell mentions Dinsdale observing white markings, this was in the context of explaining otters, not Dinsdale's own observation of the monster.

Beckjord's own operation, 'Operation Loch Ness Discovery,' was conducted from a caravan at Loch End, with assistance from Alex Crosbie and Dick Raynor. He advertised locally for 'Nessie Hunters' to observe from the hills without pay, though he found no takers. During his time at Loch End, Beckjord filmed various subjects, including the 'Scott II' and 'Jacobites' (presumably boats), for comparison with previous footage. He also observed birds, specifically Great Northern Divers, which he notes are large and dive frequently. Beckjord also looked for 'Burton's Rings,' which Maurice Burton suggested were caused by underwater movement, but found that most rings observed were random and caused by trout feeding.

Beckjord shares a tip for watching: avoid staring constantly at the water, but rather engage in a simple task and look up occasionally, as many sightings occur when observers are not actively searching.

He also discusses the wake of the 'Scott II' tug, stating that its wake does not bounce off the shore but dissipates. Beckjord remains certain that the 'vee wake' in the Crosbie (1987) photographs was not made by waterbirds, citing the size of a merganser's head as being too small to create such a wake. He notes that mergansers dive frequently and do not stay on the surface long enough to create significant wakes.

Steuart Campbell's Response and Scientific Consensus

Steuart Campbell responded to Richard Greenwell's comments in NIS87, apologizing for misquoting a survey result but not the overall conclusion. Campbell stated that the response rate for scientists accepting Nessie as a living species was 31%, not 23%. He argued that this meant the consensus was not that Nessie is not a real biological creature. However, he noted that only 38.7% of responding marine biologists accepted Nessie, and many were ignorant of relevant literature. He also pointed out that 30.4% of physical chemists (a control group) accepted Nessie.

Campbell further claimed that Greenwell was incorrect in including physical chemists in the 23% positive response and that physical anthropologists were irrelevant. He stated that 34.5% of scientists believed reports involved misidentification, and 47.6% believed they involved hoaxes or imagination. Campbell concluded that with only 178 usable responses out of 300, the results understated skepticism, suggesting that 83% of scientists reject Nessie as a real biological creature.

The editor, R. R. Hepple, notes that while Campbell's clarification was courteous, he still manipulates figures to support his view. Hepple acknowledges that he, like other 'Nessie buffs,' interprets data to fit his hypothesis but denies distorting it.

The Wake Theory and Eyewitness Reliability

Hepple discusses the reliability of eyewitness reports, particularly those made under difficult conditions, which he considers the least reliable. He contrasts his approach with Steuart Campbell's, stating that he can identify genuine accounts while Campbell tends to reject evidence that doesn't fit his negative viewpoint.

Hepple then addresses Steuart Campbell's article in The British Journal of Photography (September '88), where Campbell expounded his theory that the Loch Ness Monster is a creation of wake patterns from passing vessels. Campbell listed reports of monsters following boats and waves ploughing along calm surfaces. Alastair Boyd wrote a comprehensive letter to the editor, pointing out numerous errors in Campbell's article, though the editor took no action.

One report cited by Campbell was from October 20, 1933, where the crew of the ice-breaking tug Scott II saw a large black object following their barge. Campbell stated this was due to wake effects. However, Alastair Boyd noted that the tug's engineer initially described a 'wave-like mound of water,' but the mate later observed 'eight feet of its back rising some two feet about the water,' suggesting it was more than just a wake.

Hepple also mentions Tim Dinsdale's book and a sketch showing a path of an object that moved from one side of the vessels' course to the other, then turned away and sank. He argues this behavior is not typical of a wave generated by a tug or barge.

Hepple criticizes Campbell's assertion that boat wakes are most clearly seen in calm conditions and that most reports occur during 'dead calm' on Loch Ness. He argues that Campbell overstates the effect of reflections from the shore, stating that it requires complex circumstances for a shoreline to reflect a wave significantly. He also disputes Campbell's claim that areas like Dores and Urquhart Bays are shallow enough to cause waves to break offshore, suggesting this is a distortion of data. The 1955 MacNab picture, which Campbell claimed showed a wave breaking, is argued by Hepple to show an object over 100 feet offshore in deep water.

Hepple recalls a sighting by Alastair Boyd and Sue in Urquhart Bay in July 1979, which Steuart Campbell suggested was a wake effect from Scott II. However, Hepple is sure it was not Scott II, as the sighting involved a deliberate turn, and after thousands of hours of watching, Alastair has never replicated it. He concludes that Steuart Campbell's article, while presented to uninitiated readers, contains flawed arguments.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of scientific theories about the Loch Ness Monster, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the debate between those who believe in a biological creature and those who attribute sightings to natural phenomena like boat wakes. The editorial stance, as presented by R. R. Hepple, is one of cautious investigation, acknowledging the possibility of genuine phenomena while critically analyzing evidence and theories, particularly those that dismiss sightings without thorough consideration. Hepple emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between genuine accounts and misinterpretations or hoaxes, and he challenges explanations that he believes oversimplify or distort data to fit a preconceived hypothesis.