Veteran Nessie researcher, Henry Bauer, has entered the fray in critiquing Loxton and Prothero's "Abominable Science!". Last month, I pointed out its deficiencies from a Nessie point of view, but Henry has found even more holes in this Swiss cheese of a chapter.
He hopes to review the whole book in due time, but click on this link to get his critique of their Loch Ness Monster chapter.
Wow - Mr Bauer I have only just finished the first page of your dissection of the Abominable Science chapter on Loch Ness and I am most impressed. I'd love to read your ideas concerning the "wilson/surgeon's" photo - I'm not sure what is in that photo, but the story that is accepted as the true story of the "fake" photo is just not at all acceptable. I'm going to to go finish your piece - maybe at the end I will find links to your other posts...
ReplyDeleteFor more of Mr. Bauer's essays on the Loch Ness Monster and his take on the Surgeon's photo, visit his Nessie web page at:
Deletehttp://henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html
While I have often put for the basic idea that if Nessies do exist, there must be a small group - some old, some young, some big, some small - I love the point Bauer makes that because of this some witnesses might dismiss actual young (I'll add perhaps female) Nessies as cormorants etc. Nicely done!
ReplyDeleteAnyone who enjoys Glasgow Boy's posts really should spend the time it takes to read the above link to Henry Bauer's recent article - brilliant stuff.
ReplyDeleteBauer's critique of Loxton is an excellent essay on all points but one, which for want of a more diplomatic term I'll call an overly-sentimental attachment to the Rines' photos, which have been strongly refuted as any form of positive evidence. Other than that it's a brilliant and well-reasoned piece, factually correct with the exception of the Rines results, and counters some old, negative arguments in refreshing and succinct ways.
ReplyDeleteBravo! We believers need all the help we can get to turn the tide. Mr. Bauer brings scholarly and crtical thinking over to "our side". Hopefully one day mainstream science will mount an all out investigative assault in the search for Nessie, with new strategies and techniques not tried before or seen since the days of the LNIB and Academy of Applied Sciences. Being ever mindful that it takes more than one man and abundant resourses, Mr. Bauer adds ammo in that direction, as does this Blog site.
ReplyDeleteFor those who read Henry Bauer's document linked to above, I would offer my own assessment of the 1972 AAS flipper / sonar results at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/8aug72sonarsciformat.html
Just finished reading Mr. Bauer's review. Terrific, stimulating stuff! Especially the last footnote reference, chock full of photos and renderings plus newspaper and magazine articles I never had the chance to read. Kinda makes me want to change my mind on the "Gargoyle head" and "Flipper" Shots. Second thoughts on surgeon's photo. Could it be a hoax of a supposed hoax? and why would Spurling lie on his death bed? Why didn't Weatherell confess to it as a hoax to get back at the Daily Mail? Wilson's motives remain unclear. More mysteries! But, Mustn't be to hasty, I hate flip-flopping. I'll wait...waited this long!
ReplyDeleteA very thought-provoking article and an eloquent defence of the Dinsdale film. Thank you, Dr Bauer. I look forward to the debate that will hopefully ensue.
ReplyDeleteJohn Alvarado - have you read the Martin & Boyd book? The "deathbed confession" is pure invention by the self-appointed guardians of ( and perhaps profiteers from) the myth. Christian Spurling had nothing to do with the photography of the model, never went to Loch Ness, had better things to do than make any "claims", and died about two years after his exchange of information with the authors mentioned above. I was on Loch Ness with David Martin recently. I had earlier mentioned the numerous challenges to his conclusions; his response was that if readers could not understand what was written in the book, there was little point in entering into the discussions. The book is available via my website. I do have some thoughts regarding Dr Bauer's stance on the Loch Ness Phenomena as perceived by Tim Dinsdale and later by Robert Rines, but this thread is a criticism of a book which I have not read, so they will keep for later. I can always be contacted by my profile email.
ReplyDeleteDick:
ReplyDeleteHonestly, no, I haven't had the chance to read the book, so I mostly go by what reviews and accounts I can find on the Internet. Will do so at latest opportunity. With so many offering their opinion I think it is inevitable that facts become distorted and twisted. I don't think you can even get any two reviewers or researchers to agree on the same thing, even when they take the same side. That’s one of the pitfalls in this Internet age and forums such as this. As for Spurling, he may like you say, have nothing to do with the taking of the photograph, but by some accounts he fashioned the model and if it was a hoax his hands are not completely clean. Hard to believe he didn't know anything about it if he confessed. I don't know what to make of the head shot even GB is skeptical on that one, can you believe it! I remember reading an account, I think in Dinsdale's first book, of two fishermen who saw the head close up and described it as hideously ugly. So who knows what the possibility is. I suggest that the next time somebody attempts to take underwater pictures, they try strapping the cameras to gyro stabilized platforms to preclude the possibility of photographing the Loch floor, a rotting tree stump or the bottom of a boat.
John, there are two principal sources for info on the Surgeons photo, the Mandrake article which carried an interview with "the photographer" Ian Wetherell, which disappeared in the cloud of fluff surrounding the 1975 AAS photos a couple of days later, and the Martin and Boyd book with interviews with "the model-maker" Christian Spurling. They are really the only two primary sources for the "real story". All else is speculation or sincere comment by those who have been misled.
DeleteJohn - I do not know exactly what the Surgeon's photo is a picture of, but I feel pretty safe in saying the Martin/Boyd/Spurling explanation is utter nonsense. It is filled with internal contradictions, and despite being told "how it was done" no one has been able to replicate their process. Mr Raynor is usually able to convince me on most things, but I am sure as I can be that "real story" has almost no reality to it all. If ANYTHING happened with the parties involved, I would say that they attempted to produce a good fake after the 'footprint" incident and failed miserably.
Delete