Nessletter

Magazine Overview

Title: Nessletter
Issue: No 100
Date: June 1990 (with a note indicating it might have been published in November 1990)
Publisher: Ness Information Service
ISSN: 0264-7001

This issue of Nessletter, the 100th edition, begins with the editor expressing regret for the delay in publication and the lack of a definitive breakthrough in the Loch Ness mystery. The cover headline highlights the desire to report a solved mystery.

Key Articles and Reports

The Nessie Egg Sensation

The issue details a sensational report from the American weekly 'The Sun', published in Florida, claiming that a 'son of Nessie' was waiting to hatch from a large egg found on the shores of Loch Ness by an unnamed local farmer. The egg was described as being four feet long, three feet across, with a tough, rubbery shell, and weighing 60 pounds. Dr. Alistar McNabb, purportedly an archaeologist at the University of Edinburgh, was quoted as saying it was a remarkable reptile egg that could be Nessie's, and that finding one capable of hatching was 'mind-boggling'. However, a university spokesman insisted no such doctor worked there. The report also quoted Andrew Taggert, a Scottish tourism official, who claimed the hatching of the egg would prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and boost Scotland's tourism industry, worth £42 million a year. Taggert also suggested there was more than one creature. The Highland News, which reported on 'The Sun' story, noted that Andrew Taggert also appeared not to exist, according to Tourist Board sources. Betty Gallagher, manageress of the Loch Ness Monster Exhibition Centre at Drumnadrochit, stated that nobody had reported finding such an egg to them.

The editor expresses skepticism about the account, noting its lack of essential information (who, where, when, where is it now?) and its unusual timing (November, not April). This story brings to mind a character from the 1960s who suggested searching the shoreline for eggs instead of surface watching.

A 1932 Land Sighting

Andreas Trottmann from Switzerland sent a note about his sonar research plans and shared an article from 'Scots Magazine' of June 1990, which detailed a strange report from L.McP. Fordyce. Fordyce recounted an experience from April 1932, when he and his fiancee were driving near Loch Ness. While travelling at about 25mph in a wooded section near Foyers, they saw an enormous animal emerge from the woods and cross the road towards the loch. The creature was described as having the gait of an elephant but looking like a cross between a very large horse and a camel, with a hump on its back and a long neck. Fordyce followed on foot for a short distance, noting its rear appeared grey and shaggy, with a long thin neck giving it an elephant-like appearance. He regrets not having his camera. They initially concluded it was a escaped zoo animal.

Fordyce explains his delay in making this public for almost 60 years, citing his lack of habit in writing to the press and the potential dismissal of his story as a hoax by sceptics. He notes that many subsequent sightings were in the loch, not on land. He was prompted to share his story after reading 'Sticking My Neck Out' by Edward H. Armstrong and an article by Roy Fraser in the October 1983 issue of 'Scots Magazine', which provided descriptions similar to his own experience. He and his wife believed more attention should be paid to the wooded land surrounding the loch, particularly the Monadhliath Mountains to the east, the direction from which their animal emerged.

Fordyce references Ronald Binns' 1984 book, 'The Loch Ness Mystery Solved', which mentions a 1726 account by General Wade's men and a 1771 account by Patrick Rose, whose description of a monster tallied with his own (a cross between a Clydesdale and a camel). Fordyce asserts that the mystery is far from solved and believes Nessie is an amphibian that lives on land. He challenges researchers to conduct a controlled survey of the Monadhliath mountain area, suggesting that if the creature they saw has died, there should be bones, and questions about its progeny.

Video Analysis: The Chaffin Video

Erik Beckjord comments on Alastair Boyd's views regarding the Chaffin Video (mentioned in Nessletter 97). Beckjord states he analyzed the original video lent to him by the Chaffins. He disagrees with Boyd, asserting that the video itself, not the witness's expectations or words, is what counts. He argues that the object in the video is definitely not a duck, despite Boyd's claims. Beckjord compares it to videos of ducks and swans from museum expeditions, finding no comparison. He describes the object as blunt, black, and rounded, with an apparent width twice that of a swan, estimating its width at 24 inches. He suggests it could be the rounded top part of a head or a hump. He notes the object swims steadily, with some course changes, and shows a few feet of black body behind the head or forepart. He dismisses the idea of it being 'mergansers'.

Beckjord acknowledges that the video's resolution is limited, preventing fine detail from being made out in the 'black blob'. However, he maintains it does not match any known animal, suggesting it is either an unknown animal or a new phenomenon, drawing a parallel to the Crosbie photos. He recalls a mistaken identification of 'three plesiosaurs' in a 1983 video, which turned out to be ducks, and clarifies that this was a mistake he admitted previously. He expresses gratitude to Tony Harmsworth for helping him understand this mistake. Beckjord also addresses Boyd's hours spent at the Ross Chalet, suggesting that brief visitors can sometimes get lucky, referencing past instances of tourists seeing Nessie.

Beckjord suggests that movie film (super 8 mm or 16 mm) is a better recording medium than stills for monster hunting, a point he has advocated since his days with the LNI. He criticizes the quality of some materials being promoted as proof, stating it damages the case for serious investigation.

Other Contributions

William Hills writes about his personal opinions on the Chaffin video, noting that while Erik Beckjord found the video quality good, he also pointed out the limitations of the zoom lens and the inability to discern fine detail in the black blob. Hills questions how Beckjord can state it's not a known animal without details. He also mentions that others who saw the video preferred the '12 inch ball' or 'drum' interpretation over the 'decoy duck' comparison made by Beckjord.

Jean Skeldon shares memories of living in Dores in the early 1980s and her late husband Jim. She corrects the editor about the location of Eilean Donan Castle, stating it is on Loch Duich, not Loch Linnhe as previously implied. She fondly recalls the 'corkscrew' at Inverfarigaig.

Mark Chorvinsky, editor of 'Strange Magazine', seeks assistance in investigating the Doc Shiels' photographs and establishing their truth.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue reflects a continuing dedication to investigating the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon, acknowledging the challenges and the need for rigorous evidence. There's a clear emphasis on analyzing video and photographic evidence, with a debate between different researchers (Boyd, Beckjord) on the interpretation of the Chaffin video. The editor maintains a skeptical but open stance, questioning sensational claims like the 'Nessie egg' while encouraging detailed investigation and the sharing of eyewitness accounts. The recurring theme is the persistent mystery of Loch Ness and the ongoing efforts to find conclusive proof, with a growing interest in land sightings and the analysis of various forms of media evidence. The publication also serves as a platform for readers to share their experiences and opinions, fostering a community of researchers.