NESSLETTER

Magazine Overview

Title: NESSLETTER
Issue: 156
Date: June 2010
Publisher: NESS INFORMATION SERVICE
ISSN: 0204-7001

This issue of the Nessletter, dated June 2010, is largely dedicated to a detailed examination of the Tim Dinsdale film, taken fifty years prior on April 16th, 1960, at Loch Ness. The editor, 'Rip', opens with a personal 'Rip's Piece', thanking readers for condolences on the death of his wife Doris and reflecting on the significance of the Dinsdale film's anniversary.

Tim Dinsdale Film

The main article delves into the circumstances surrounding the filming of the Loch Ness Monster by Tim Dinsdale. Dinsdale, inspired by a magazine article and Constance Whyte's book, embarked on a solo expedition to Loch Ness in April 1960. He used a Bolex 16mm cine camera with a 135mm telephoto lens, mounted on a tripod in his car.

On his first day, April 16th, while driving towards Foyers, he observed two grey humps in the loch. Initially exciting, he later identified these as a floating tree trunk with a sprouting branch. The article emphasizes this observation as potentially crucial later in the narrative.

Dinsdale's daily routine involved early morning surveillance, interviews with locals, and further filming. On his fourth day, near Foyers Bay, he filmed a disturbance in the water, appearing as two long black shapes. On his sixth and final day, he spotted a reddish-brown object about two-thirds across the loch, which appeared shorter than local fishing boats and sat unusually high out of the water. He stopped to examine it with binoculars and noted it seemed to turn from a side profile to an end-on view.

Analysis of the Film and Subsequent Research

The article then explores the analysis of Dinsdale's film, which was processed by Kodak. Dinsdale was initially disappointed with the black-and-white result, describing it as 'shabby'. Despite showing the film to scientific circles, he met with general apathy. The film gained wider attention later when a journalist demanded the story, leading to its release on TV newsreels and the Panorama program. The film was later enlarged to 35mm. Six years after the filming, JARIC examined the film and concluded the object was 'probably animate'.

The author questions why, in the subsequent half-century, no one has obtained film of comparable quality. He discusses the possibility of misidentification, suggesting the object could have been a boat. He contrasts Dinsdale's film with later attempts by Richard Carter and Adrian Shine, who used similar equipment to film boats on Loch Ness, producing clear footage that unequivocally showed boats.

Several factors are considered regarding the potential fuzziness or indistinctness of Dinsdale's film compared to the replicated boat footage. These include the possibility of the film being shot through a car window, or condensation forming on the camera lens due to the cold air when the window was wound down. The author recounts his own experience with a car heater being an optional extra in the early 1960s, highlighting the potential for cold conditions.

Adrian Shine's further analysis using computer enhancement is discussed. While Shine identified a pale 'blob' where a 'helmsman' might be and a thin, dark, upright shape, the author remains unconvinced, suggesting these techniques may not be providing clear-cut results.

The article references a letter from Henry Bauer, author of 'The Enigma of Loch Ness', who posted a webpage with computer enhancements of the film. Bauer's analysis suggested 'definitively nothing on the surface, no boat, just a heavy wake'. The author notes the difficulty in reaching definitive conclusions when respected experts examine the same evidence and arrive at different interpretations.

'A Millennium Tale from Loch Ness'

A separate, shorter narrative recounts an angler's experience on Easter weekend. The angler, using a 'Silver Century' British Seagull engine, prepares his clinker-built boat at Foyers. He experiences a minor issue with the engine stopping due to a closed fuel tank vent, which he resolves. As he heads towards the River Moriston, a man with a cine camera is seen pointing it through the window of a parked car near the Foyers Hotel. The narrative concludes by noting that neither the angler nor the man with the camera would ever know how their lives briefly crossed that day.

Editorial Notes and Subscriptions

The editor, Rip, concludes by mentioning the difficulty in compiling the Nessletter, including losing five pages of text due to a computer issue, and thanks Lapwing Computers for data retrieval. He expresses gratitude to NIS members and provides subscription details and contact information for R.R. Hepple.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme of this issue is the critical examination of photographic and film evidence related to the Loch Ness Monster, specifically focusing on the 50th anniversary of the Tim Dinsdale film. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious skepticism, acknowledging the enduring mystery of Loch Ness while emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and the potential for misidentification. The author grapples with the lack of "indisputable photographs, the unequivocal evidence" after fifty years. There is a clear emphasis on scientific investigation and a critique of those who might exploit the mystery for self-promotion. The inclusion of the angler's story and the brief mention of the man filming suggests a broader interest in unexplained events and coincidental encounters, even if not directly related to the main Dinsdale film analysis.