Ness Information Service Nessletter

Magazine Overview

This issue of the Ness Information Service Nessletter, No. 94, dated June 1989, is primarily focused on continuing discussions from previous issues, particularly concerning the Loch Ness Monster. It features contributions from Erik Becjord, Doug Macfarlane, and Alastair Boyd, alongside historical references and analysis of eyewitness accounts.

Erik Becjord's Response to NIS92

Erik Becjord addresses points raised in previous Nessletters, offering his perspective on the photography of the Loch Ness Monster. He posits that Nessie is inherently 'unsharp' and that obtaining clear, definitive photographs is challenging. He draws parallels with sightings of the Yeti and Bigfoot, suggesting that the desire for 'safe' and recognizable images often leads to dissatisfaction with the evidence presented. Becjord discusses a series of photographs taken by Alex Crosbie in 1987, which showed an object creating a wake, alongside known objects like a yacht and a cruiser. He details his process of enlarging the photographs to determine maximum useful magnification, noting that the creature was in the center of the frame and in softer focus than the boats at the edges. He also mentions Dr. Bruce Maccabee's identification of a 'shield-shaped head' in these photos. Becjord expresses skepticism about camera lens focusing, stating his belief that they focus over the whole frame, and humorously suggests that if Erik's lens behaved differently, it would be a strange one for monster watching.

Becjord also touches upon the National Cryptozoological Society, noting its growing membership and past expeditions, and distinguishes their focus from the limnology efforts of the 'Shine group'. He indicates that he values the opinions of experts like Richard Fitter and Dr. Maccabee over Tony Harmsworth, based on the former's study of enlargements.

Doug Macfarlane's Update

Doug Macfarlane reports on his Loch Ness activities from the previous year, which were limited by heavy work commitments. He logged 482 hours on the water with his sounder and 127 hours of camera watch. He also undertook a trip to Loch Shiel and spent 112 hours with his sounder there, covering a significant distance. Macfarlane also details his experience at Lake Bala, where he spent 82 hours over four outings, noting abundant fish, particularly in deeper areas. He describes the lake as having a unique fish called a 'Gwiniad'. Despite his efforts, he recorded no large objects that would confirm sightings. He mentions that the local fishing shop owner had heard of sightings but had not personally seen anything larger than a trout.

Macfarlane also discusses his work repairing his catamaran and its sailing performance, noting speeds of up to 9 knots in light winds. He planned to sail to Loch Ness for the summer to continue his echo sounding work. A brief note in late June indicates he was behind schedule but had nearly completed reframing woodwork and hoped to make the trip in late July.

Alastair Boyd on Historical Context and Folklore

Alastair Boyd responds to remarks made by Ulrich Magin in NIS 91, challenging the assertion that there were no monsters in Loch Ness prior to 1930. Boyd argues that this statement shows a limited awareness of the cultural history of the phenomena and that the absence of newspaper reports does not prove non-existence. He refutes the idea that the 'long-necked sea creature' is a modern myth, citing historical accounts of 'lake-horses' and 'kelpies' from as early as 1857. He quotes Lord Malmsbury's diary describing a creature seen in Loch Arkaig with a hollow back, not resembling a fish or seal, and a head like a horse. Boyd also references newspaper accounts of similar animals in other Highland lochs, suggesting that pre-1930 eyewitness accounts from Loch Ness may be undiscovered.

Boyd discusses the frequency of occurrence versus reporting of anomalous phenomena, citing Ron Westrum's research. He highlights that eyewitnesses are often inhibited from reporting due to fear of ridicule, as seen in the anonymous submissions of the Milne (1930) and Mackay (1933) sighting reports. He explains that Mrs. Mackay's reticence was due to fear of being accused of having had 'a large dram'. Boyd emphasizes that information becomes known through a series of choices to pass it along, using Mrs. Mackay's sighting as an example of how a private experience can become famous.

He further notes an irony regarding Mrs. Mackay's sighting: the commonly attributed date of April 14th is incorrect, being the date Alex Campbell learned of it, while the sighting occurred in March. Boyd then introduces the case of Mr. George Spicer, whose 1933 experience, though less famous than Mrs. Mackay's, has achieved notoriety. He recounts Captain James Fraser's recollection of Spicer being baffled and shocked by his experience, having never heard of the Loch Ness Monster at the time. Spicer's reaction was to write a detailed letter to the 'Inverness Courier', permitting his name and address to be published, unlike the more reserved reactions of some local residents.

Boyd attributes the difference in reactions to local people's awareness of Highland folklore, such as 'each uisage' or water-kelpies, leading them to interpret sightings as legendary creatures. He quotes Constance Whyte on how Highlanders viewed such appearances as omens or visits from the Devil, not ordinary animal kingdom members. He also cites R. Macdonald Robertson's work on Highland folktales, describing the 'Ech Uisage' as an infernal agent. This folkloric background, Boyd suggests, made the Loch Ness animals a taboo subject, leading to delayed discovery, similar to the Lewis chess pieces or the terracotta army.

He concludes by mentioning a recent event in early July where a Canadian couple took video footage of an unusual object with a basketball-sized head and a wake in Urquhart Bay. The footage was in North American format and could not be viewed locally.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the challenges of photographic evidence in cryptozoology, the importance of historical context and folklore in understanding sightings, and the psychological factors influencing eyewitness reporting. The editorial stance, as conveyed through the selection of articles and the editor's own commentary, appears to be one of critical inquiry, presenting multiple viewpoints while leaning towards an acceptance of the possibility of unknown creatures, particularly at Loch Ness, and emphasizing the need for careful analysis of evidence and historical context. The publication actively encourages reader contributions and aims to provide a platform for diverse opinions within the field.