Thursday, 25 July 2013

New Book on Tim Dinsdale

I just got a heads up from a reader telling me that a biography on the famous monster hunter, Tim Dinsdale, has just been published. Entitled, "The Man Who Filmed Nessie", it is written by one of his sons, Angus.


The book is published by Hancock House Publishers and further details can be had here. The book's brief synopsis reads:

"The story of the dedicated family man who left his successful career as an aeronautical engineer to search for proof of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster."

I have just been reading Dinsdale's "Project Water Horse" and his son, Angus, was certainly involved with his dad's work - even as a young lad.  No doubt he will have many interesting things to say about this seminal character in the story of the Loch Ness Monster.

I will review it once my order arrives.

(typing this from a holiday cottage on the Isle of Lewis!)

While I am here, an old favourite has appeared on YouTube ... look out for Tim Dinsdale!








47 comments:

  1. All my admiration to Tim Dinsdale and his son.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seems to be a US/Can publisher. Will it be on sale at UK book shops?

    Daz

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the heads-up on this GB. Looking forward to checking out the book.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looking forward to this. Tim's film is the one film out of pretty much all photography captures of the alleged creature that I hold on to. I really really have a hard time that a boat could have been mistaken by him. Granted the weather conditions supposedly weren't that good, but the loch is not that wide and I dare say one would have to be blind not to make out a boat from an overlooked perspective across the loch.

    jon

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello once again.

    I am the person who provided you with the heads up about the book being published.

    I have begun to read the book, and already early on, I have come across "surprise" material that I was not aware of at all. (And perhaps you are not as well, hence me providing it to you.)

    To whit (on page 16):

    "In 1993, six years after Tim's untimely death, a TV company in the UK doing a story on Loch Ness took a copy of the film [the 1960 one taken by Dinsdale] and did its own investigation. One of the technical operators noticed something and switched the film over to view it in negative. He then laid a number of the same frames over one another to reveal a shadow underwater. This shadow is unmistakeable in its shape, clearly showing a large diamond-shaped fin, a body, and what appears to be a tail, just under the surface. For someone who's literally had a lifetime of the monster, and viewed my father's film from all angles, it was startling to see. I was--and still am--amazed by that image."

    I would like to suggest that you find out which TV company did this examination, and whether or not a copy of this overlay experiment can be acquired, and then produce it here on your excellent blog spot.

    And this is only Chapter 1 (!!)

    But I will continue to read the book as time allows me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I know to what program you are referring to, although I don't recall the name offhand, but it was probably shown here in the US on the 'Discovery' channel. As a matter of fact, I think it might have been that 'Loch Ness Discovery' expedition thing.
      There is a segment where the film is being scrutinized by these experts and they reverse the film to negative and enhance contrast and you can see something rather large just beneath the surface behind the exposed hump Tim was filming.
      The guy then turns to the camera and says, "I thought the monster was just a load of rubbish...but now I'm not so sure." (or words to that effect)

      Now I think I'm pretty sure it was that tv program. Regardless I most certainly have a copy filed away...

      jon

      Delete
  6. LOCH NESS DISCOVERED. Very, very old news.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi,
    The matter of which you speak of has been discussed extensively elsewhere. Discovery Channel's 'Loch Ness Discovered' has presented the results of the analysis in question.
    The 'shadow' is a physical impossibility (in order to have it, there must be an object above the water surface to cast it, yet the object above is a 'hump' and therefore cannot cast an elongated shadow with a flipper). The same applies to a 'reflection'. Nor is it possible that the 'shadow' was actually the visible underwater part of the 'animal' (it is impossible to see underwater from the angle of filming). And finally, let us disregard all the laws of physics and assume that the 'shadow' represents part of the animal. The creature in such a scenario would measure more than 30 m in length(size of a blue whale).
    How does one then explains the 'shadow'? The darkened area behind the filmed object ('hump') is actually an area of water with different wave dynamics than the rest of the surface are due to the passage of the boat. This small area reflects the opposite shore and is, hence, darker than the rest of the surface.
    Case closed.
    A T Lovchanski

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of anything else, Tim Dinsdale did not film a boat. I have been to Loch Ness umpteen times and you can see a motor boat, or for that matter a rowing boat, with the naked eye travelling along the opposite shore. Tim's film shows something two thirds or so across the Loch at the start of the filming and although the camera position was inshore somewhat it would still be close enough to identify a boat had there been one present. To make a comparison Tim employed someone to travel out to the same area of the Loch in a boat and filmed this from the same spot with the same camera. It can clearly be seen that the object filmed on this occasion was a boat with a man on board. Also there was a propeller wash visible on this film which is not in any way present on his original film. As far as I am concerned this definitely rules out the boat hypothesis.

      Delete
    2. I can see where you are coming from there, Pete. Boats are not that easily misidentified and tim had been there about a week to do some familiarisation.

      The sceptics reply is that Tim had poor eyesight, but the counter is that is why people were glasses. I wear specs and can spots boats no problem a mile away.

      The second tactic is that he was looking at the object through his wound up car window. I would first of all like to know the source of that story. But secondly, a car window is not going to offer much impairment unless it is pretty messy. Again, how does one establish these so called facts?

      Delete
    3. Perhaps they are using there imagination a little too much, just as eye witnesses are believed to be doing by the debunkers. Of course, this is going to be true in many sightings, especially if the people involved are not familiar with the Loch and its conditions. In Tim's case however, he not only had his experience of the area to rely on, he got damn good footage that holds up to this day.

      Delete
    4. It's definitely a boat. The wake is a boat's screw wake (frothier on one side due to the action of the propeller), plus the multi frame overlays clearly show a person sitting in a small boat. This film is finished as far as supporting Nessie is concerned. Next!

      Delete
    5. Well, I have read Adrian Shine's paper on the TD film and it is not a weak case. However, I would rather suspend judgement in the interests of repeatability. Could I reproduce the alleged helmsman on the overlay using my version of imaging software and my source of frame sequences? Could you?

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. That is correct! The day after his original footage :-)

      Delete
  9. Pete - I hope you are getting your information from contemporary books and not from the Internet, but the comparison boat sequence was filmed within three hours of the Nessie sequence and not the following day. However, image stacking of the Nessie sequence shows that it too is of a boat - see http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Remembered.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Dick & G B,
      Dick,I have looked at the Nessie stack on your webpage and while I agree that the Monster image and the comparison boat image look similar what I find hard to understand is when Dinsdale filmed the 'Monster' sequence and a short while afterwards filmed the comparison boat sequence he did't see the similarity.Its been said that he had poor eyesight but he would see both images with the same eye's.Because I find this puzzling I think I have to put this question in the Gray basket.
      About 1970 I visited Drumnadrochit and went to a loch Ness Exihibition. If I remember correctly (it was a long time ago) there was a still image purportedly from Dinsdale's film.This Photo showed a large hump followed by a small hump as the creature moved away from the camera,was this photo genuine.
      Regards,
      Jack.

      Delete
    2. Jack -Sorry I missed your post until now.As far as I know, the only "exhibition" in 1970 was at the LNI at Achnahannet, plus a few 20 x 16 prints on the wall at the Glenurquhart Lodge Hotel.

      I really don't know how many times TD saw his own film until after the BBC converted it to video (405 lines) for the Panorama programme of 13th June 1960. Even after that he would only project copies at his presentations e.g. LNI Christmas Parties and scientific gatherings, and I believe they all contained the enlarged (=zoomed in) sequence so were probably made from the tv tapes, thus removing them even more generations from the original reversal film. All these conversions reduce the quality, and the bottom line is that TD was showing the film to generate interest in further research, not to invite critical discussion of its subject matter.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your reply Dick.
      I have discussed the exhibition with my son who is now 40 years old and he thinks we went when he was about 12 so that would make it 1985.I was up at Loch Ness about 1970 so thats my excuse for the confusion.
      The still image from Dinsdale's film that I refered to was blown up to about 5'x5' and was very grainy.The information alongside the photo said that an analysis had been carried out by NASA and they had discoverd the smaller second hump.I suppose the large first hump could be the boat and the smaller second hump could be the man but there seemed to be clear water between them.
      Jack.

      Delete
    4. Jack - I suspect this might be another example of basically competent computer enhancement at JPL followed by over-enthusiastic interpretation from the AAS team leader.

      Delete
  10. Dick. My apologies for being incorrect with the date of the comparison video. As for the image stacking sequence, this is something I have been aware of for many years now and have scrutinised to the best of my limited photographic ability many times. I still see no boat and a photographic expert friend of mine sees no boat either. It's one of those pictures/films where people will se what they want to see but in his opinion if it was a boat it would be highly obvious after image stacking. In truth it cannot be said exactly what is in the film but I am firmly in the "Not a Boat corner"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pete - I can accept that you sincerely cannot see a boat in the top image on my webpage - the "Nessie stack". Below it is the image stack of Hugh Rowand's boat. They are at www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Dinsdale comp 2a.jpg.
      I will assume that you cannot see a boat in that either; but can you agree with me that both stacks show a very pale object at the front of the area of interest, a pale area just behind that, then a raised object, followed by a gradually weakening pale streak?
      The reason I ask is because the lower image is a stack of a boat, and the upper one is still believed by a tiny group of people to show a completely submerged creature leaving a long wake (explain how) and yet making splashes with its paddles (explain that too, please).
      Most reasonable people would come to the inescapable conclusion that the images are very similar, and as one is known to be a boat the other one is most likely to be a boat also.

      Delete
    2. Dick. The link you provided isn't working for me so I can't check up on your theory at the moment. What I will say now is that whatever Tim filmed doesn't appear to me to be completely submerged, thus explaining the wake that is visible. Any "splashes" visible could also be explained by whatever the "object" is being partially above the surface. I agree that many reasonable people would concur with you and say what was filmed was probably a boat. I am also sure that many reasonable people would disagree with a boat being seen but that they are unable to offer an explanation as to what it actually is. The Loch is a very mysterious place. A couple of years or so ago Simon Dinsdale was on TV in a midlands TV program. Both the original film and the boat reconstruction film were shown and were of pretty good quality. There is a definite propeller wash in the reconstruction but nothing of this nature in the original film and Simon pointed this out strongly. This point seems to have been disregarded over the years so perhaps somebody could offer an explanation about this.

      Delete
    3. Pete. Please try the link further up the page - www.lochnessinvestigation.com/remembered.html to see the whole page, then the image stacks are found by scrolling down. The dark line behind the "Nessie" >is< the prop-wash and is dark because it has so much oil in it that it is creating areas of specular reflection of the hillside above it. Seagulls back then used 10:1 mix. The left arm of the "V" is pale, and about the same intensity as the right arm. I have to disagree with those who claim otherwise. The film clips can still be seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wnzyl

      Delete
    4. Dick. I'm not convinced about the oil slick disguising the propeller wash because you are proposing that what was filmed was a small 2 stroke powered boat, not the Amoco Cadiz incident lol. However I have plenty of respect for your opinions but I will still say that I am more than reasonably sure that it is not a boat in Tims film. The problem is that nobody can identify what was filmed if it was not a boat, but I am happy to label it as a true unknown.

      Delete
    5. OK, Pete. Forget about oil and specular reflections of dark hillsides; just go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wnzyl and you will see, even before running the clip, the right hand arm of the V just after the 3 o'clock position, he prop wash around 6 o'clock, and the left arm of the V, same pale tone as the right, about 9 o'clock.The wake is distorted because the boat is yawing erratically.

      Delete
  11. Yes, the comparison boat sequence was filmed some 3 hours later and just proves the "object" in the first sequence is not a boat whatsoever, but an unidentified animal swimming.
    You don't have to be an expert to see that. It's obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People see what they want to see, and "unsee" whatever challenges their need to believe. In this case, they're "unseeing" the clear image of the pilot, and disregarding Dinsdale's own admission that the object was a maroonish color. What would appear maroonish from such an extreme distance? A red boat. What would be hovering above the rear of the object? The pilot of said boat.

      Examine Dick's research. Even a JARIC analyst has since given his opinion that it was a boat thanks to modern computer technology (as well as the ability to actual study a MOTION PICTURE COPY instead of still images -- an important point that is often forgotten by Nessie enthusiasts.).

      Delete
  12. What a marvellous little video, Glasgow Boy! Is that the voice of the Cheshire Cat and the Jungle Book's Snake playing Nessie? Very good! Do you happen to know who the narrator is? The voice is extremely familiar, but I can't quite place it. Possibly the Jungle Book narrator...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The names are given at the end of part 2 of the youtube clips (did you click thru to part 2?).

      Sterling Holloway did Nessie who also voiced Winnie the Pooh.

      Sebastian Cabot narrated various Disney films and voiced Bagheera in Jungle Book.

      Delete
  13. Thank you, Glasgow Boy - I had not clicked through to part 2 as I'd assumed the Nessie portion had ended. I'll have a look at it on your latest post. Thanks for the names - of course, the voiceover is 'Bagheera'!

    There are some interesting accounts of Nessie which I assume we won't see or read anywhere else included here. The claim that Nessie 'rolled' and 'wriggled' up and down the Loch was particularly interesting.

    I was also tickled by the older lady casually smoking whilst giving her account to the camera. How times have changed!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chasing Leviathan11 August 2013 at 07:23

    Amazing to finally see and hear the like of David James and Ted Holliday speaking for themselves. Many thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too true, I sometimes wish some of these old veterans were still around to back up those who still believe in Nessie!

      Delete
    2. "I sometimes wish some of these old veterans were still around to back up those who still believe in Nessie!" Some are, Roland, but they have learned a lot in the intervening years; they do not have their needle stuck in the 1969 groove :-)

      Delete
    3. I wasn't forgetting you, Adrian or others. I was thinking of people such as Holiday and did indeed wonder what their stance would be today if still alive. I am sure some would still be in the old groove.

      Delete
    4. I think the problem Ted encountered was that he realised that the wide variety of descriptions of Loch Ness phenomena could not be reconciled in a single "animal"*. Equally he wouldn't dismiss unusual reports as being of "something else" because they were too valuable so he had to attribute weirder and weirder powers to his "Nessies", eventually making them alien entities. I have recorded my opinion of what TD would have thought on my "remembered.html" page.

      Delete
    5. This, of course, raises the question: were Beckfjord's allegations that TD was a subscriber to the "psychic Nessie" ways of thinking legitimate or fiction...?

      Delete
    6. TD does describe some experiences at Loch Ness as "entirely real", from which I infer that there was at least one other category.Perhaps Angus' book will give is more insight.

      Delete
  15. Dinsdale said the colour was a reddish brown and it resembled the back of a buffalo. Now how can an open boat look like the back of a buffalo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "how can an open boat look like the back of a buffalo?"

      It is quite simple of one mistakes the starboard interior detail for port exterior detail. It is a common optical illusion. I recall a report that someone at JPL asked lunar photographers if they wanted mountains or craters from their enhancement process.

      Delete
    2. "how can an open boat look like the back of a buffalo?"

      It is quite simple if one mistakes the starboard lower interior detail for port upper exterior detail, or vice versa. It is a common optical illusion. I recall a report that someone at JPL asked lunar photographers if they wanted mountains or craters from their enhancement process.

      Delete
    3. And if it was a 100% open boat with no upper or lower?

      If you are talking craters and mountains, then any shadow at that date and time would be generally to the left of the object and not port or starboard.

      Delete
    4. Sorry I wasn't very clear. Looking down on a simple open boat from a great distance, items inside the boat - people, bags, thwarts, painted surfaces etc, might be mistaken for a continuation of the opposite outer surface 'as if' it were a hump with a dapple, rather than a hollow with variously toned objects inside it. It was a useful occurrence that the boatman and other contents did not extend beyond the outline of the hull shape, so preserving the outline as an ambiguous shape during the first part of the film. The image stack of the later part (when we are told it was "now fully submerged" and making "paddle splashes" which is wasn't doing when higher out of the water...) now reveals the helmsman.

      Shadows are not an issue in this case because the sun is above and behind the photographer and so any shadows will be out of sight on the other side of the object.

      Delete
    5. Sounds like a lie to me. Especially as he had binoculars. Another hoaxer at loch ness!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 30 August - You are entitled to your opinion but I worked with TD for the '71 season at the Loch Ness Investigation HQ and think I got to know him pretty well.You will be hard-pushed to find a more sincere and intelligent man in the history of the "monster hunt". His binoculars were tiny 7 x 20(?) and he wouldn't have seen much detail in a 15 foot hump a mile away through them. Check out www.lochnessinvestigation.com/remembered.html for more of my comments. Also check to see which "classic" sightings were dropped from later editions of LNM and ask yourself why. TD was prepared to change his mind as he learned new things; some others don't do that.

      Delete
  16. With binoculars? I very much doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh come on dick? really

    ReplyDelete