Friday, 5 September 2014

Those Loch Ness Investigation Bureau Films



Some readers may have read my comments and others on the whereabouts and accessibility of the films taken by the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau during the 1960s. Though no one is expecting any of these films to be game changers, they are nevertheless part of the tapestry of the eighty year long search for the Loch Ness Monster and a minor debate has arisen as to their current whereabouts.

For those who don't know, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau was an organisation set up in 1962 with the objective of solving the mystery of Loch Ness once and for all. Ten years later, they were disbanded having failed in that objective (though some disaffected and now sceptical members may have left believing the mystery was solved in more mundane terms).

Though various experiments were attempted in pursuit of the monster, the mainstay of investigation was the surface watches using 35mm cine cameras with telephoto lenses. These cameras were either mounted on fixed platforms or taken around the loch on vehicles.

During that time a group of films were shot with varying degrees of success. The only well known one is that taken by Dick Raynor in 1967, but there are others and Roy Mackal in his "The Monsters of Loch Ness" mentions another fourteen such films. However, I only recall ever seeing the LNIB's Raynor film in the public domain.

So do these films still exist? If so, what is their state and whereabouts? How do they compare to what people like Roy Mackal documented in his book "The Monsters of Loch Ness"? The one film that generated most interest on blog comments was an alleged filming of the Loch Ness Monster on land taken in June 1963. Though not likely to be of great value since it was taken at a range of nearly two miles, the interest of myself and other Nessie-philes was piqued. 

Deciding to take the initiative, regular reader, Peter, established email communications with Loch Ness researchers, Adrian Shine, Dick Raynor and Henry Bauer to find out more. His findings are reproduced verbatim below in italics.

Greetings.

I am going to partially “de-cloak” here (allusion to Star Trek), and talk about  more details concerning the LNIB and its film cans.

My name is Peter, and Roland is familiar with me.  I have been lurking on Roland’s webblog for some time, and I always enjoy his postings.  At times, I read the comments sections, but not often.

However, recently, Roland posted an article about land sightings at Loch Ness, and I also read the comments that followed.  This blog article, coupled with the subsequent commentaries, provided the impetus for me to do some more spadework on this topic.

This commentary provides a “map” as to what I have currently learned.  All errors in interpretation of what others have told me are entirely my own. 

I have had correspondence with Adrian Shine, Dick Raynor, as well as Henry Bauer.  All these men were courteous, cooperative, and informative in their responses.  So any brick-bats that I have seen in the comments section were not in evidence in my experiences.  I thank all of them for taking the time to engage in these telepresence “dialogues.”  I should add here that the alacrity with which I was able to obtain the information that I impart here is a product of the Internet Age, as attempting to do this in the “by international post” manner of times past might have taken months.

I should reiterate here that this commentary of my own should not be considered comprehensive, although I attempted to ask a good many questions.  For example, one question I recently asked Dick Raynor was if he could guess-timate the total number of film shoot sequences displayed in the 35mm film cans, and his response was “I do not currently have a useful opinion on that.”  I interpret that to mean that such statistical data is not yet in hand--but I am hopeful that Dick may eventually one day be able to provide this type of numerical data. 

My questions and interest have centered around the LNIB film cans, and the June 1963 event, where potentially a large creature came on shore and was filmed doing so.  Due to the fact that these men were exceptionally informational in their responses, I am going to quote and use data from their correspondences with me so that others can understand context.

Let’s begin with information from Adrian Shine.

When Adrian inherited the LNIB film cans from David James in 1976, it was already known that the film footage was problematic—Adrian described them as “less than spectacular.”  (These problems will be described further on here by Dick as to the quality of the footage.) Compounding that, all the film footage taken by LNIB volunteers was of the 35mm size, the exact counterpart that many feature dramatic films are shot in, as well as projected in theaters.  As Adrian told me, these 35 mm filmstocks “required nothing less than a cinema” for projection and viewing.  So Adrian was not able to see the contents until sometime in the early 1980s, when he was able to arrange a viewing session at the Eden Court theater in Inverness.  Adrian went on to state to me that “I concluded then, that none of the films contained useful research material.  It was also a fact that it seemed difficult to identify the individual sequences” as detailed by LNIB reports.  (Again, Dick’s inputs will provide some context as to why.)  Later on, Adrian passed on all the cans to Dick Raynor.

According to Adrian, Dick Raynor produced clips from all the sequences on hand by a high-resolution printing process.  Subsequently, due to a researcher request in the past, Adrian further had all the film footage digitized.  However, it is not clear to me--based on the information that Adrian kindly provided--whether current researchers can have access to this digitized film footage for independent research purposes if they make a request to do so.

Additionally, Adrian informed me that all LNIB paper reports containing sightings that were collected have been freely available for over a decade at the following URL link:


Adrian further disclosed that individual sighting records are currently being prepared for exhibition at the Loch Ness Center as well, even though there are some issues currently about permissions and addresses of eyewitnesses (that are in the process of being resolved).  And Adrian suggested I get into contact with Dick Raynor.

Dick has been very helpful in responding to the voluminous set of questions that I have had.  The bulk of the information about the LNIB films comes from him.

Based on what Dick has told me, the conclusion that I have personally reached about the LNIB effort is that it was an amateur enterprise, and that it lacked much scientific and technical coordination.  It seems that there was no master catalogue produced of film shoot sequences, neither was there any film can tracking, nor does it seem that there was any effort to provide some simplified technical cinematography training to the volunteers in regards to shooting film.  These apparent shortcomings are borne out by Dick Raynor’s responses to my inquiries.  However, despite the fact of these hobbles, Dick has been engaged in  excellent work, which is currently on-going as he gets time.

Dick provided the following illuminations.

a)—The film cans in Dick’s custody were not catalogued at all:  “There is really no rhyme or reason to the reels and cans, I’m afraid.”  That is, there was no tracking/identification data on them. “They are a collection of slightly rusty tins of varying sizes with no original labels, some containing positive film, and others containing negative material, usually wrapped in preservative tissue.”  He has seen the 35 mm filmstocks projected “a few times.”  All the 35mm films are black-and-white.

b)—He also has seen some 16mm versions of some of the 35mm film stock sequences, which he believes may have been among those shown at some LNIB Xmas parties (and other functions such as volunteer recruitments) in London.  He further told me that “From memory, some of the items on the 16mm film reel [that he has seen] are not in the 35mm material in hand.”  He further adds that it was difficult to see [recognize?] anything on the 16mm films at all “with the exception of Tim Dinsdale’s film and my own [which was taken in 1967].  Of course, I have studied frames from these films using modern digital software, which is far superior to what we had 20 years ago.” 

But there may be other 16mm film cans out there, and Dick would like to be able to learn what is contained as content on those, and maybe even get a chance to view them.  As do I, because I would like to find out if the June 1963 potential “creature on the shore” sequence exists currently, and if so, what this clip actually depicts.  (Subsequently, Dick suggested I get into contact with Henry Bauer for more insights about LNIB films.)  There is also a possibility that the June 1963 potential “creature on the shore” event may only be extant on 35mm film stock, but the whereabouts of this particular film footage sequence is currently unknown.

c)—“With few exceptions,” according to Dick, the films were shot by people who had never used a motion picture camera before.  “The quality is mostly very poor, with soft focus and incorrect exposure being common, leading to a lack of contrast.”  (Contrast helps with seeing detail, as well as with resolving things.)  Indeed, Dick has told me that none of the material he has viewed up to this point has been “meaningful”—that is, shows a large creature unknown to science in the Loch.  Many of the sequences show wakes on the Loch (that Dick feels are products of wind phenomena and boats), as well as bird activity on the Loch’s surface.

d)—One of Dick’s on-going projects is the attempt to “match up” LNIB film sequences with the paper records.  (Only a few sequences have been successfully matched to the reports, according to Adrian.)  Dick is attempting to do this matching up by identifying the background shown in the film shoot sequences, and then hopefully, the camera location.  I consider Dick’s effort near-Sisyphusian, and everyone should take their hats off to him for attempting to pursue this. 

e)—Both Adrian and Dick confirm that there are indeed filmed LNIB 35mm sequences shot that are no longer extant among the existing 35mm filmstock that Dick has.  This includes the June 1963 event that potentially shows a creature coming onto the shore.  According to Dick, he has seen a 1963 vintage film clip, but it does not show anything like the forementioned described event.  As Dick told me, “The two week period of the 1963 expedition was lucky enough to have several sightings.”  He is also currently working on attempting to identify other filmed event sequences that are not among the 35mm film cans he has in hand. 

Based on Adrian and Dick’s commentaries, it seems doubtful that the LNIB ever captured anything of significance dealing with the Loch Ness creature on cine film—that is, the 35mm cine film shoot clips currently in hand. 

However, not everyone shares this viewpoint.  According to Henry Bauer, he feels that there were three occasions where there were “possible filmed contacts” by LNIB personnel regarding creatures unknown to science in the Loch.  He specifically mentions the June 1963 “creature on the shore” event as one of these possible contacts.

Indeed, the story does not end here.  Henry has demonstrated willingness to aid in the effort to possibly locate potential locations of where other LNIB 16 mm film cans reside, and I thank him for that.  And if these efforts subsequently bear fruit, I will provide further updates as they become available.

If anyone has further information on LNIB film cans or film shoot sequences, whether 35mm or 16mm, please post your comments.

So, there you have it. I thank Peter for his efforts and to Adrian, Dick and Henry for their cooperation. Where does this leave us? Firstly, it is good that the films that are available have been digitised and enhanced. It sounds like some of them may end up being displayed at the Loch Ness Centre at Drumnadrochit where Adrian is curator. But how may those who live further afield view these facets of the Loch Ness story? Given that the items are now digitised, the next step to streaming them online is not rocket science. It is also a matter of interest as to what conclusions the researcher who received the digitised films came to. What did he or she find out about these films?

I also had a quibble about Adrian's comment that all LNIB sighting reports were available online. I understand that there are hundreds of such reports of varying clarity and description gathering dust in boxes. I suspect it is the best ones that made it into the LNIB public reports. Loch Ness researcher, Tony Harmsworth, informs us that about a thousand reports were collected by the Bureau (although not a few were of a dubious nature).

Sadly, the alleged land sighting film appears to have been lost and we may never know what this film allegedly showed, But the others are there, enhanced and digitised. Will they ever see the light of day or will they forever remain under wraps and beyond the gaze of thousands of Loch Ness Monster fans?


 

 








105 comments:

  1. I feel I recognise Pete's writing style. I would love to know his surname, because I feel sure I know who he is. There was an American Pete who wrote in exactly this style on a late 90s Nessie forum.

    As for the films - I understand the desire to see them, but it really does sound like there's nothing of significance among them. It seems clear that Dick R's film must have been the only one interesting enough to reach the public domain. Perhaps the legend is enhanced by the "lost footage" story, and believers might be better off with the situation as it currently stands, rather than us all getting to see a long series of boat wakes and a blurred dog playing on a distant shore? Clearly there was nothing of any great significance filmed, or it would have ended up on the BBC News, like Dick's film.

    Finally, I am surprised that Roland hadn't previously made email enquiries to Adrian Shine along these lines! The way he mentioned the possibility of engaging a lawyer in a previous post made me feel sure he had made efforts along the lines of Pete's and had been rebuked, but it appears that is not the case at all. A few simple emails from Pete have shown that there is no "concealment" of films going on - there is simply apathy towards them because they show (like all L Ness films show) diddly squat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is claiming these are great films, we would just like to see them and I encoiurage other pro-Nessie people to take the initiative. I can't do everything.

      Delete
    2. I agree - some of us just want to see them, regardless of what they actually show. I've always wanted to see the other (first) footage Dinsdale shot, though I know many (including GB I think) don't think Tim got Nessie either time.

      Delete
    3. Not so fast! The analyses mentioned about helmsmen and speed are not so dogma as some would have us believe. I will side with Tim Dinsdale until I get round to my own analyses - whenever that is. No hurry, after all, life is bigger than Nessie.

      Delete
  2. Good points here. Whilst i agree the films could not have bin much or they wud of bin shown more i agree we shud all be able to see them for an opinion. This is my point with the 2000 video i harp on about lol. Never gets shown. Now most people have seen Dicks video. Can i ask GB and GS what their opinions are of Dicks video ???? Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, I agree we all should be able to see the films. It sounds like we will be able to at some point, and the reason we haven't so far is a combination of people not asking, some films being lost, and many not being digitised because whoever has seen them has simply not considered them to be worth the time and effort. There appears to be no effort to hide them from the public though

      As for Dick's film... I remember seeing it as a child (and since), and always thought it was far more interesting than the Dinsdale film and the surgeon's photo. From the first moment I saw the Dinsdale film I was convinced I was viewing a small motorboat, and the surgeon's photo never looked right. I formed these impressions when I was a believer in Nessie.

      The Raynor film seemed far more interesting. To me it looked like some kind of animal swimming through the loch. I couldn't tell what though. It seemed possibly like the size of a swimming deer, but no deer like head could be seen. Ultimately, mainly due to the low quality of the film, I had no conclusion. I know how Dick saw birds agterwards which he said behaved exactly the same as what he saw and filmed, but I did think it odd that he didn't notice such birds when filming. On the other hand, he stood to gain nothing from debunking his own film.

      I always say we should view the Dinsdale film on its own, i.e. the film does not become any "more genuine" just because Dinsdale said he viewed a humped animal through binoculars, because that part of the story cannot be verified. I'd have to take the same approach with the Raynor film. I can't say he filmed birds just because he believes he did. All I can say from my own perspective is that the Raynor film is inconclusive.

      By the way Jack, thank you for supporting my presence here a couple of weeks ago. Whichever sceptic called you "just a brickie" clearly prefers living in a flimsy wooden shack! All professions are equally valid in my view.

      Delete
  3. Cheers GB yeah brickie jibes water off a ducks bacl lol sumone anon anyhow lol. I agree with the Raynor film as one of the more interesting ones. I know Dick changed his mind later on after seeing birds behaving in a certain way but for a while i think he thought he had videoed something unusual. Im not sure about the birds myself cus what impresses me is the long clear wash coming off it seen clearly from a distance! Im sure Dick would of seen the birds if thats what it was. But it certainly is better than most vids and pics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roland wrote " However, I only recall ever seeing the LNIB's Raynor film in the public domain."

    What makes you think it is in the public domain? It is copyrighted material that was licensed to some documentary makers, and was then pirated and uploaded to YouTube, but that doesn't place it in the public domain any more than Tim's film is.

    Dick R

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's in the public domain ... legally or not.

      Delete
    2. If that is your legal opinion, enjoy the ducks :-)

      Delete
    3. I have no legal opinion on the matter.

      Delete
  5. I'm with Roland on this - one way or another, Dick's and Tim's films have made it into the public domain, even if covered by copyright. Any member of the public with Internet access can view the films.

    I've just listened to the radio interview with Angus Dinsdale. It left me feeling quite depressed to be honest. All the years of hunting and research triggered by Tim's film of a small boat. I also watched Tim's film again, and I cannot understand how anyone fails to notice the propeller screw wake. Clearly when viewed from behind there is a clockwise propeller underwater creating a foaming wash to the left and a darker, calmer area to the right. It's so utterly a propeller wash.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Them ducks on loch ness must be something special leaving wakes that powerful :

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just attended the meeting of Skeptics International, and their consensus is that its a new unknown Giant Duck named Quackus Gigantus that can reach 45 feet and has a Gas Permeable Bill (GPB), that can absorb oxygen from water.G.S assured me,confidentiality that This is what people are seeing and because Quackus Gigantus lives entirely underwater, its a rare occasion when it showed itself.

      Delete
    2. Duck walks into a pharmacy and says" I'd like to buy some blistex please", and the pharmacist replies:"will that be cash?"
      Duck: " Naw,just put it on my bill!".

      Delete
    3. A joke so old even the plesiosaurs heard that one.

      Delete
  7. Bull.its an animal.a computer video forensics expert enchanched it and obtained a shadow of a large marine animal body producing the hump that was filmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't encourage the sceptics, we'll never leave this page now!

      Delete
    2. Yes Anonymous. Also, the recent image overlay process shows a jolly helmsman riding on the back of a plesiosaur. :-)

      Delete
    3. Geordie, you should balance your rabid skepticism with a p.m. hello to Mr skarbo,in British Colombia who's son Alan Skarbo was eaten by Ogopogo,when they had a party on their new houseboat over the deepest part of lake okenagan.perhaps you can tell him it was a duck?
      The point I'm making here is that there are large unknown animals in large lakes.

      Delete
    4. Sorry g.s,but I feel that much vaulted " image overlay" is a red herring and cannot compare to the computer forensics enhancement nova or discovery paid for which changed the skeptic technicians opinion right on the spot.it clearly showed a body with appendeges (4)just behind and connected to the hump.it was just under the surface.

      Delete
    5. I'm positive dinsdale did not spend his life actually OUT on a creepy lake at night,in a TINY boat because he filmed a boat,lol!!
      Quite a change from gs's armchair Harrumping the notion of large animals from the cozy barker lounger on front of the fire in his cottage..

      Delete
    6. Dinsdale's film shows a boat, plain and simple. Ok you've decided to discard the inconvenient results of the image overlay process (even though it's supported by imaging forensics experts), so please post a link to this computer analysis which somehow shows a body underwater. It sounds ridiculous to me.

      Delete
    7. Here's your Ogopogo 'proof': "1988 , summer, Allan Skarbo of Peachland and friends were enjoying an afternoon out on the lake in his new house boat. Dan Kerr's captain's cap blew off and a visitor stripped his jean shirt off and dove in to get it. Next thing they knew he was in trouble. He just sat there staring with a very scared look. They threw a life preserve but he didn't even reach for it. Dan Kerr dove in to help him but when he got to where he had seen him, he appeared to have moved. So Dan dove under to him three or more times but never reaching him. The police were called and a report made. It was noted he was a strong swimmer. An under water camera was brought from Vancouver but they never did find his body.Afterwards they looked up were they had been and noted they were in some of the deepest water of Okanagan Lake just north of the Peachland Marina. Allan Skarbo sold his new houseboat and never ventured on the lake again. The victim may have been his son."

      Delete
    8. Profiling dinsdale,shows a man,who changed his entire course of life due to a encounter with the L.O.C.H.N.E.S.S M.O.N.S
      T.E.R.,not a deer,duck,or disposable diaper,but a bloody big animal.AND what about the Giant Biological that diver ran into 15 feet deep and over the drop off in the loch? 6 feet thick,and long? At close range? Is that a duck Mr Geordie skeptictictic? Come on now,earn your pay...

      Delete
    9. Henry Murdoch a marathon swimmer Also was eaten in 8 feet of clear,calm water as the rower stopped,bent down to light a CIG.before he dissapeared he was swimming effortlessly.well,Geordie? Chop,chop!!

      Delete
    10. Actually, the whole nonsense about the underwater 'shadow' or 'reflection' [sic] originated from this documentary: 'Loch Ness Discovered', 1993, Discovery Channel production. As Dick Raynor explained countless times, any underwater part could not have possibly bee seen from such angle of view (correlated to distance). Furthermore, if the darkish 'contour' was actually a part of animal's body, then its total length would be enormous (rough estimate would indicate more than 30 m!).

      The expert/technician in question stated something to this effect: 'Before I saw the film, I thought Loch Ness monster was a load of rubbish, but after I've done the enhancement, I'm not so sure anymore'.

      What is 'rubbish', is actually the result of his 'analysis'. Case closed.

      A T Lovchanski

      Delete
    11. Wasnt there something in dinsdales book about a second hump seen just behind the main object?? Supposidly found few years later???

      Delete
    12. Anonymous tells us about poor Mr Skabo in Okanagan Lake. Sure there are things that can kill you if you dive into the lake - cold water shock gets some each year, like it did Winifred Hambro in Loch Ness. http://www.ipick.ca/kelowna/jump-in-the-lake-and-youll-be-in-for-a-shock

      Delete
    13. Indeed there was, Jake. However, as I recall, the 'second' hump is only detectable in one single frame. This rather implies that it was just an artifact on the film rather than a filmed object. Just imagine the velocity of physical display of any organism able to contract its back into a hump which surfaces and disappears in just 1/24 (0.0416) seconds! Furthermore, my previous objection regarding the overall size of such a creature (both 'humps' included) applies in this case well.

      A T Lovchanski

      Delete
  8. Well in Dicks video i think we can say its defo not a boat so a creature of some type! I have to say that reports of big wakes and washes have interested me. The wake in Dicks video is very powerful so i cant see birds bein responsible. The 2000 video also has a powerful v wake that is impressive. Also a couple of photos ive seen have powerful wakes...the finola one and more recent the edna mguiness one by dores 1994 witnessed by 3 diffrent people. I have also seen a photo taken from by dores of an object with a powerful l v wash taken by a huge sceptic who was left baffled by it! I think objects with wakes and washes proove there is something there moving...unlike still photographs! And i think Dick did not video birds even though he thinks he did. Only my opinion of course! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, we can't comment on anything you don't post links to.

      Delete
    2. Jake, you also need to bear in mind that Dick's film is not limited to only 2 choices - ducks or a monster. There are other realistic options which are as mundane as ducks.

      Delete
  9. Cant post links. Only use my phone. Surely someone in the know will have seen the AAS video or can post it up?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Im not very technical as u obviously can see lol but i have had a google search and the video im on about has a mention on loch ness monster wikopedia on section on films. It said Rines team videoed a powerful wake on a calm loch in 2001. I believe the still photo in booklet is of same object. GS if ur in area ull find the booklet in most shops. Loch ness and inverness page 17. Sorry i cant be of more help. The video is 30 seconds long and bit similar to Dicks but nearer and sideways on shoeing a clear powerful v wash before dissapearing!! Someone must have seen this if i have !

    ReplyDelete
  11. GS I know that lol but Dick claimed it wss birds so im saying its not. Yes it could be anything but seems quite powerful for an ordinary known creature such as fish otters etc and what leaves a long wash like that??? Cud it be a deer??? Be interesting to know if it just stopped or dissapeared which wud rule that out. As i belive in these creatures though i dont really call them monsters i think this is a good chance this was one of them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Geordie it was a deer that,due to Convergent Evolution,had adapted to a fully aquatic lifestyle in order to feed on the lochness mussel which is full of oxygen.This fully explains why they submerge.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, it appears that you feel - as ever - that Raynor's film shows a Loch Ness Monster. Rather than posting silly digs at me, why not enlighten us all about what it is about the film which made you reach that conclusion?

      Delete
    3. There is more video on his website at http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Oddities3.htm Third one down. What is that ?

      Delete
    4. Ive seen dicks more recent video of megansers and yes they leave a disturbance but sorry in my ooinion nothing of the scale if his 1967 video.

      Delete
  12. And GS i havnt said dicks film is limited to two options a monster or ducks. Dont put words in my mouth ..cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree you haven't said that. I only wrote it because it seems to me that some people on here think that anything which is blurry enough to not be readily identifiable must therefore be a monster. I often see examples of highly illogical (and wishful) thinking.

      Delete
  13. Yes GS maybe some do but my point really was to rule out birds.i just cant see birds leaving wakes like that. And the way its moving it looks creature like.if its not an aquatic creature then it would have to get out of the loch and surely this eould of bin seen but i dont know the conclusion to the video as ive only seen the 20 or so seconds film. If it does indeed stop and disappear then surely its aquatic? Ok we might have semi aquatic lije seals or otters but i know these dont leave a wash like that in a long straight line. So this is why i think its an interesting video GS and i agree better than most.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "He also has seen some 16mm versions of some of the 35mm film stock sequences, which he believes may have been among those shown at some LNIB Xmas parties (and other functions such as volunteer recruitments) in London."

    Why on earth would film showing 'nothing' be shown at a Xmas Party or indeed a recruitment event? Surely must have been 'something' to see to warrant being shown I would have thought.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Im afraid Mr Dinsdale pulled the wool over peoples eyes with his film: He had 7 X binoculars with him so nobody can tell me he did not know it was a boat: Now i do think Tim thought the monster was real and he spent half his life looking for it but 4 some reason he played a hoax, maybe he did it 4 the money or maybe he did it 2 promote the monster i dont know: im afraid he goes down with the Frank Searle's of the monster world: and before any1 tells me Tim was an honouable man and a gentleman, So what?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm still trying to work out why anyone would pay me to read a Nessie forum and post sceptical comments which hardly anyone seems to agree with.

    I'm quite bored with my day job (a fairly mundane office job), so if the Illuminati are reading this - I'm willing to do this with a bit more effort if you'll pay my mortgage. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tim, I have always found it incompatible to (1) believe that Dinsdale's film shows a boat, and (2) believe he was a 100% honest man.

    He reported seeing such incredible detail through the binoculars - not just an animal's hump, but with a blotch on the side - that he cannot have made an innocent mistake. I completely believe that he just pointed the camera at a distant dark shape, then embellished the story to make the film seem authentic.

    Frame overlay analysis shows he filmed a boat. This is clear to all but those most desperate to believe in Nessie. Another cornerstone of the case for Nessie has crumbled. It's a shame that this also exposes Tim Dinsdale as having fabricated the story, rather than simply being mistaken. Apologies to those who will find these comments sacrilege to Nessiedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chasing Leviathan8 September 2014 at 15:41

      Okay, I for one am going to want to respond to some of the above in some depth, but time is currently against me.

      But if I may? I do not believe the Dinsdale film has been conclusively proven to be a boat, although I am quite prepared to accept the possibility of misidentification. I am not 'desperate to believe in Nessie.' The existence or otherwise of large unknown animals in Loch Ness or elsewhere is by no means a matter of holy writ with me. Neither do I regard the comments made above as 'sacrilege to Nessiedom.' What I DO regard them as being is potentially very hurtful to the Dinsdale family, and suggest we all bear that in mind before we continue. If we can't, let's stop this discussion right now.

      To quote someone who knew Tim well who I was lucky enough to talk to a few years back; "There wasn't an ounce of deception in Tim; he just happened to be mistaken."

      Whether he WAS mistaken is still to be proved in my opinion, but I'd ask everybody to bear the first part of that statement in mind before we continue.

      No offence intended to anyone. I just felt that needed to be said.

      Delete
    2. He was not mistaken.he filmed a hump of a truly monstrous animal.the British military confirmed it .Sorry don't buy the "new" military guy saying its a boat and Nessie may be a threat to those religious fanatics of evolution.

      Delete
    3. Hi . What i cant get over is how the film was put through the most up to date technology of its time and no sign of a man in the boat. Years later again with the most up to date systems there was no sign of a man. Then all of a sudden the latest systems brings out a man in a boat as clear as day! One extreme to the other! I find that hard to digest. I would like to see the video put through the system again and make sure the correct video is used and maybe not get mixed up with the second film Tim took which was of a boat. Thank u .

      Delete
    4. Chasing Leviathan, here's my take on this whole issue of sensitivity around TD and the film.

      Firstly, I believe respect should be shown to the relatives of those who have passed away. No question about that.

      However, that respect should not prevent people from invesigating Tim Dinsdale's film. Performing a multiple overlay of frames certainly shows an artifact on the object exactly located where a helmsman would be on a small boat. This is hugely significant, given that for decades people have believed he filmed a boat, and that includes many Nessie believers.

      If you believe, as I do, that the case is now solved and we now know he filmed a boat, then how can you reconcile that belief with TD's assertion that he clearly viewed the humped back of an animal with a dark blotch on the side through binoculars? It is impossible to both believe he filmed a boat and believe he thought he saw that level of detail through the binoculars. Best case scenario (if one believes he filmed a boat) would have been he saw a blurred boat with a helmsman, surely?

      I do not think it's a terribly bad thing for a person to have done, i.e. to believe he filmed a monster, then bolstered the tale with the humped animal with blotch part of the story. Plenty of other people associated with the loch who have passed away have had much worse things said about them on this site.

      I believe Tim was a good man who is greatly missed. I don't believe the film was a hoax as such, but I vehemently DO believe Tim embellished the view through his binoculars.

      Let's get real for a moment: This is a tale of a giant monster filmed in a lake. Of course we can question the events without feeling we're sullying anyone's name.

      Delete
    5. I like how you internet war skeptics slander Tims name,then say he's a good guy don't sully his name,to paraphrase. BTW,you also slandered the video computer forensics expert who showed clearly a big,animal .sorry I don't think the RAF also was mistaken when their experts said it was a living animal.their ability at the time could spot a pimple on a paid skeptics behind,so don't try to pull the image overlay bunk which cannot compare to these other experts.sorry,try again( and I know you guys will..;*)

      Delete
    6. Do you realise you have zero credibility here with your amazingly ridiculous concept of skeptics being paid? It genuinely comes across as a form of paranoid delusion and it makes no one take anything you say seriously.

      If you want to be listened to I suggest you ditch the conspiracy theories.

      Delete
    7. I have already begun deleting such comments, nothing to do with whether there is a large, unknown animal in Loch Ness!

      Delete
    8. From what I recall, JARIC based their report on nothing more than enlargements of frames from the film and their conclusion was it "was probably animate", to paraphrase. That's hardly concluding it was a "massive, unknown animal".
      I also don't believe the "Man in the Boat" theory came about from usage of cutting-edge technology. Didn't Adrian Shine simply adjust the contrast on a television while watching a video tape of the film initially? The image stacking is another story and clearly shows it's a boat.

      Delete
    9. So now Adtian Shine is cleverer than JARIC ? Oh right ok .

      Delete
    10. JARIC got the speed of the object wrong, that has been proven. They overestimated the speed by not knowing there was a pause in filming for the winding of the camera.

      JARIC did not have access to the technology now available, so their analysis could not match what can be done today.

      JARIC were seemingly unaware of the frame overlay method which evens out film noise. They did not perform this process.

      I am not sure why believers dismiss the scientists who are skeptical of Nessie, while at the same time insisting the JARIC analysis must have been correct because they were scientific experts.

      In short, JARIC got it wrong. This has since been established to be the case.

      APC

      Delete
    11. Hmmmm, been a while since I looked at this point of debate:

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/dinsdale-jaric-and-carter.html

      I must get round to doing the frame overlay myself, but it is such a tedious task. The kind of thing you dip in and out for an hour or so over the months. Adrian's overlay tests should be repeatable.

      Dick Raynor has already covered the sceptics' arses by claiming in advance that I will undoubtedly fail to reproduce it. Damned if you, damned if you don't.

      Delete
    12. As long as you don't create an image of a plesiosaur wearing a tartan hat I'm sure you'll do the honourable thing GB.

      Delete
    13. I will attempt to be as unbiased as those logical machines we call sceptics. :)

      Delete
    14. Gotta admire believers like Jake and Richard Carter. Not afraid to speak up about crap like the Bright photo n the Dinsdale film. Even though it doesn't help the case for the monster those dudes are honest and honorable.

      Delete
    15. Hey, GS. Thanks for the reply. Sorry it’s taken a while to respond. As I said, my time’s limited at present and I wanted to try and answer you properly.

      First off, an apology if it came across that all my indignation was aimed exclusively at you. It wasn’t. I should have been more specific when I said ‘the above’ to make clear that included comments other than just yours; Sloppy phrasing on my part. As I said: apologies.

      To address the points you make:

      “Chasing Leviathan, here's my take on this whole issue of sensitivity around TD and the film.

      Firstly, I believe respect should be shown to the relatives of those who have passed away. No question about that.”

      We are in complete agreement on this, but thanks for saying so. The internet is far too much of a bear-pit for my liking and basic courtesy all-too frequently discarded.


      “However, that respect should not prevent people from investigating Tim Dinsdale's film.”

      I am in complete agreement again.

      “Performing a multiple overlay of frames certainly shows an artifact on the object exactly located where a helmsman would be on a small boat. This is hugely significant, given that for decades people have believed he filmed a boat, and that includes many Nessie believers.”

      On the basis of the one overlay exercise to date undertaken to my knowledge, absolutely. I think Dr Maurice Burton was the first out of the traps on the boat theory. Your comment is a perfectly fair assessment of the situation as I understand it. If I was being pedantic I might change ‘exactly located’ to ‘very close to’ as we don’t know what model of alleged boat we’re talking about, but that’s a pretty petty quibble and does nothing to challenge your main argument.


      “If you believe, as I do, that the case is now solved and we now know he filmed a boat, then how can you reconcile that belief with TD's assertion that he clearly viewed the humped back of an animal with a dark blotch on the side through binoculars?”

      Okay; here’s where we’re starting to part company: I HAVEN’T said I believe the case is solved and that Tim filmed a boat. I’ve certainly said I accept that his having filmed a boat is a real POSSIBILITY. As you say, the image overlay exercise raises significant questions about the evidence and offers an alternative explanation that supports the position that the object filmed was a boat. My main concern with this theory at present is the lack of REPETITION of the exercise, as I believe repetition to be crucial to the question of proof. Before I personally am prepared to accept the boat conclusion I would like to see some corroboration via other examinations of the film undertaken by different people, ideally with everyone working from the same good, clear and complete copy of the original footage. I would certainly think the latter part of this wish is now possible as the Dinsdale family have been good enough to put Tim’s film up on the internet for all to see. (http://www.themanwhofilmednessie.com/tims-nessie-film.html ). If the conclusions of said examinations match, the case for the object being a boat becomes pretty compelling. But that hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge and I would prefer to reserve judgement on what you quite rightly describe as a crucial piece of evidence until it does. Tim Dinsdale chased this thing for twenty-seven years, at considerable cost to himself in terms of finance and arguably in terms of health. The man deserves the courtesy of a fairer and fuller hearing than he is currently being given in my opinion. And anyone who states Tim was in this for the money clearly hasn’t bothered to do their research and would be well-advised to undertake a little of the latter before making such ill-informed comments.

      I'll continue in a second post. Please bear with me...

      Delete
    16. Continuing...

      “It is impossible to both believe he filmed a boat and believe he thought he saw that level of detail through the binoculars. Best case scenario (if one believes he filmed a boat) would have been he saw a blurred boat with a helmsman, surely?”

      Certainly Tim’s very clear statements about what he believed he did and didn’t see are one of the things that have led people to find his testimony persuasive, myself included. On my first visit to the Ness pretty much the first thing I did was make a study of every boat/dinghy/buoy etc I could find, given that the ‘he filmed a boat’ chorus was now in full swing. Consulting my notes of the time, I find a very blunt ‘A boat’s a boat – no question.’ I have to date seen nothing man-made on Loch Ness that was not clearly so, and my eyesight’s not 20/20. Employing binoculars – no question about it whatsoever. (Although clearly experienced observers like Dick Raynor and Adrian Shine disagree and I respect their opinions very much). So again, we’re pretty much in agreement. But what we then have is our OPINIONS. Opinion is not evidence. If I understand you aright you are convinced the evidence shows Tim filmed a boat and, in your opinion, it would have been impossible for him to have seen the details he claimed. I, at present, would like to see some corroboration of the image stacking exercise. Should this be forthcoming my opinion would probably be that, via a combination of suggestion and exhaustion, Tim fell victim to the trap first identified by Commander Gould all those years ago that every monster hunter must beware of – EXPECTANT ATTENTION: We see something ordinary and unconsciously translate it into the extraordinary because the extraordinary is what we’ve come looking for. A more recent example of this might be the 1982 Jennifer Bruce photograph. (Sorry, GB! I know you like this one, but the gull explanation seems good to me. What I also note is that I didn’t see it until it was pointed out to me, whereupon it became pretty undeniable, and I’ve been an ornithologist since I was ten! A red face, but a very clear lesson in expectant attention for me!)

      But that is NOT my opinion of the Dinsdale film at present. My opinion at present is; “I don’t know what that is.” I’m open to being convinced, one way or the other.

      Continuing again in a sec...



      Delete
    17. Third and final part (I hope!)

      “I do not think it's a terribly bad thing for a person to have done, i.e. to believe he filmed a monster, then bolstered the tale with the humped animal with blotch part of the story.”

      So just to clarify – you DO accept that Tim genuinely thought he’d filmed a Monster?

      “Plenty of other people associated with the loch who have passed away have had much worse things said about them on this site.”

      The late Frank Searle unquestionably and not entirely without reason! ;) Who else did you have in mind? I think I remember a few slightly unkind comments about poor Ted Holiday, but nothing that bad. Have I missed someone?


      “I believe Tim was a good man who is greatly missed. I don't believe the film was a hoax as such, but I vehemently DO believe Tim embellished the view through his binoculars.”

      Definitions according to my dictionary:

      Hoax: Something done for deception or mockery; a practical joke. To deceive; to devise falsely.

      Embellish: To make beautiful; to adorn.

      I am very pleased to hear you don’t think Tim’s intention was to hoax. ‘Hoax’ is a big word to use in the context of Loch Ness and, as I said in my initial reply, a potentially deeply hurtful one. It gets thrown around far too easily in this debate and rarely with the care it deserves.
      Is it possible that Tim ‘embellished’ his account? I suppose the only honest answer to that is; ‘Yes, it’s possible, because it’s a very human thing to do.’ The tale grows in the telling, as the phrase has it, and most of us can be accused of falling into that trap now and again. But is there any EVIDENCE that he did? It might be useful to know if he made any notes/sketches of his sighting in its immediate aftermath. If he did and they still survive a comparison between them and his later published accounts of his experience might give us a better idea.

      But as far as I can tell, certainly from LOCH NESS MONSTER onwards Tim was entirely consistent in his accounts of his sighting: no embellishment in evidence whatsoever.

      While I have dictionary in hand, if I might quote your post of 8th September, 14.16:

      “It's a shame that this also exposes Tim Dinsdale as having fabricated the story...”

      Fabricate: To make or fashion; to form by art or labour; TO DEVISE FALSELY. (My emphasis).

      The latter part of that definition turns up in the above-quoted definition of ‘Hoax’ you’ll notice. If we’re in agreement that it wasn’t Tim’s intention to hoax, I’d respectfully suggest ’fabricate’ probably wasn’t the best word to use here.


      To return to your post of 9th September:

      “Let's get real for a moment: This is a tale of a giant monster filmed in a lake. Of course we can question the events without feeling we're sullying anyone's name.”

      As long as the questioning is done respectfully and politely on both sides and we all choose our words with care, particularly when talking about people no longer in a position to defend themselves, absolutely. You’ve certainly done that in the above post and I have no complaints, even if I’m not in complete agreement with you.

      Whew. That was an essay. Sorry to waffle on. And thank you again for taking the time to respond to my comments.

      Delete
  18. Tim, as someone who worked with Tim Dinsdale at Loch Ness for the 1971 season I have to disagree with your assessment of him. I never had any reason to think his film showed anything other than an unknown animal during his lifetime, or that he had either. If you go to my webpage http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Remembered.html you can see those 7x binos hanging round his neck in his self portrait - they are tiny, and given that his eyesight was far from perfect I have no reason to doubt his word. His sketch of the view through the binos is inaccurate as to scale, as you will see when you scroll down my webpage, but that does not invalidate his impressions at the time. In my book, Tim Dinsdale was one of the good guys. If you wish to discuss this further, email me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why the detailed view reported through Tim's binoculars, rather than "My eyesight wasn't good enough to be sure what I was looking at."?

      He may have been a good guy, but good guys can still embellish, especially if they don't think anyone would be hurt by them doing so.

      Delete
    2. The give away was the ending of the film where Dinsdale said he cut it short 2 go further down the loch 4 a better view. How very fitting so we could not see the monster going back down ! Come on guys the whole story is fabricated. Your saying he had poor eyesight? Did he not have glasses? His detail in his book of the so called hump was very clear. This was no mistake, Dinsdale must have known what he filmed. Good guy maybe but another hoaxer.

      Delete
    3. I am not liking this talk about Tim Dinsdale. He knew he was short on film, so he took a gamble which did not pay off. He said he scanned the loch for the beast and saw nothing - not even a BOAT! Tim had previously filmed an everyday object which had initially fooled him. If he had filmed a boat, he would have seen it thru binoculars from near the shore and we wouldn't be talking about it.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, I don't believe this account. That is my choice, and people should be free to not believe it.

      Delete
    5. I'm not going to rehash my take on the film as I did so ad nauseum here a short while ago but just one thing I'd like to say again...

      I can go on a stretch of straight road where I live and mark out a miles distance and a boat of the sort that Tim filmed I would say be easily identifiable considering I could make out people, dogs, automobiles, etc. The loch is just not very wide, no? A mile - mile and a half? Tim's object was even less than a mile, no?

      Photographs of loch ness seem to give the impression of vast distance from one side to the other mostly due to the use of wider angle lenses in many photographs, cause a mile really ain't very far at all

      Jon

      Delete
    6. Geordie,do you think the monster is a 30 foot salamander or 30 foot eel,or a plesiosaur?

      Delete
  19. In the second paragraph of this page, Roland states "For those who don't know, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau was an organisation set up in 1962 with the objective of solving the mystery of Loch Ness once and for all. Ten years later, they were disbanded having failed in that objective ..."

    In my recollection, DJ said the LNPIB was set up "as a clearing house for information" and in that respect it truly was a success.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's hope its inheritor, the Loch Ness Project, lives up to the same billing.

      Delete
  20. Do we know who actually took the 1963 beach film in question?

    Michael A./Portland

    ReplyDelete
  21. Be nice to see this video! The others we talk bout are old hat now! Pity we cudnt get the two videos u put up here GB scruitinized abd the one i go on bout or even holmes one! As i said before there is better stuff out there that doesnt get discussed. Baffling !!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whilst on the subject of old films there is a couple of old ones featured on a documentry u can find on youtube. Type in Leonard Nimoy loch ness. Its an old documentry 22 mins long that features two films of something moving in the loch. One from the 60's and one from the 70's. Take a look its quite an interesting programme :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. From everything i've read or heard about Tim Dinsdale, he was a good guy. However, i do believe he was mistaken that day. I find the evidence that he filmed a boat fairly compelling. Over and above that, the problem i've always had with the Dinsdale film is that, if there really were large animals in the loch prone to that type of prolonged surface movement, surely we'd have seen far more of them? Surely there would be similar films by now?

    ReplyDelete
  24. On a kinda related note - The Dores Inn is for sale if any of you have a spare 750k and fancy running the best gastro-pub in the Highlands!

    (if you do buy it, i want discounted beer prices for giving you the tip)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear an American investment group is going to buy it and put in a MacDonalds with a lochness theme kiddi playground.MacDonald's wants to reassociate ...its name with scotland also Ronald MacDonald statues will be placed every 100 meters along ALL the shoreline of lochness kitted ouu with motion cameras.great huh?these statues will also light up at night so to possibly attract the monster and light the way of night hikers.of course it will have the traditional colors of MacDonalds.a special haggis Burger may be offered called ..the Brave heart.

      Delete
  25. GB did u get to watch the youtube documentry i mentioned? Was the 1960's and 70's video of any interest to u ?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would not count on Dick Raynors judgement on videos especially after seeing his john gillies video compsrison to that boat on his web page. It was nothing like it .

    ReplyDelete
  27. Email me, Anonymous 15 September 11:46, so we can discuss it in private.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I dont need to discuss it Dick. I am entitled to my opinion and it looks nothing like the boat in question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That is debatable, Mr A., at least as to the value of it :-) - See http://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why Mr Raynor,do you feel the need to control anonomous's opinion? You sound like G.S.

      Delete
  30. Sounds to me like an offer of education from a guy who works on Loch Ness. No wonder it isn't welcomed by Messrs Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then why not keep it in the open then?
      There is too much big brother on the net ,and YES,they do pay people to comment.snowden published this facts showing the training and templates.Discredit is the first stage,then big brothers acceptable " truth" is pushed.perhaps Nessie is to be discredited because she threatens evolutionary theory or someone in Scotland doesn't want her discovered and hates tourists.you cannot deny the many people who have seen a GIANT animal in the loch,that's a fact.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, I believe there are one or more large creatures in Loch Ness. But that doesn't really confirm or deny the theory of evolution. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no positive ID on what it is. Invertebarate, fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal? We all have different opinions on that.

      Delete
    3. What we as skeptics cannot deny is that many people *believe* they have seen an unusual animal in the loch.

      What we are saying is that the lack of even one good film or photo or carcass is a strong evidence that there is no monster. The lack of convincing evidence cannot be denied.

      APC

      Delete
  31. Frank searle spent an age working on loch ness, would you take an education from him?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Frank Searle said the Rines Flipper Picture was retouched before anyone else did.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Reading through a couple of the comments, I'd just like to throw out there that anyone thinking about attempting image stacking or any similar type of analysis of any footage downloaded from the Internet is probably wasting his or her time. Those Youtube and other online Flash videos are so highly compressed that any fine detail contained in a single frame of either 16mm or 35mm film would be almost completely erased. The only way to do it properly would be with raw, uncompressed frame images scanned directly from the original film at high resolution. This would be a very similar process to what Bill Munns did with the Roger Patterson Bigfoot film a couple of years ago, and I suspect that not many people would have such access to the actual film. Adrian Shine did his experiment "from videotapes which have entered the public domain," which while far better than compressed online videos, is still really lacking as source material.

    Same goes for the LNIB 35mm films that have supposedly been digitized. There's no indication when this might have been done, how the film was transferred, or what format they might have been stored in, but it's a pretty good bet that unless it's on D3 or Digibeta you can substitute "compressed" for "digitized." The digitized films might be fine for loading on Youtube, but if anyone is planning on doing any serious research they could probably benefit from a fresh 4k scan if the actual films could be located.

    Personally, I don't think it's really necessary to waste that kind of time on the Dinsdale film, as I find the evidence quite compelling that Dinsdale filmed a boat. The Raynor film is far more interesting to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very good point. In order for the overlay experiment to work you need to work from the best version of the film.

      I also agree there's very little point wasting time on the obvious mistakes like the Dinsdale boat film or the Bright wave photo. Focus more on the stronger evidence, like errr..... hmmm.

      APC

      Delete
  34. Disco Biscuit - my own 1967 35mm film is sitting in its can here. I generally ignore posts from the lower case trolls on Roland's blog, but as Peter implies at the top of this thread, I am happy to correspond with genuine researchers. I look forward to hearing from you.

    DR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings, Mr. Raynor! It's good to know that the film is safe and secure for future research. I'm afraid it would be a bit of a stretch to call myself a researcher, as that title implies doing actual legwork :), but more of a skeptical armchair observer with a keen interest. I was really just responding to a couple of people who seemed to think they were going to do serious research on those Youtube videos more than trying to open a new avenue of research. But since you are willing to discuss it, I'd be curious to know when and how the film was telecined and what sort of digital format it currently exists in. I've done noise reduction averaging with multiple video captures of the same source, but never with stacked still images of a single source. The principle shouldn't be too different though. If you are able and willing to provide a few frames of high quality source material, I'd love to play around with it a bit and just see what turns up.

      Delete
  35. It seems to me that unless your educated or your not a computer expert or spend hours on loch ness then your not entitled to your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I agree sum skeptics think like this anon but not all. I have always said Joe Bloggs has as much chance of getting a photo of nessie as the next man !!! But to be fair i dont think Dick Raynor has that attitude! Im quite sure if i wanted to ask him something or discuss a sighting or photo he would have the time of day to answer!. Though im not sure how i wud fit into his category of ' genuine reasearchers' lol as when im up the ness i spend more time with a can of tennents in my hand lol but with one eye on the loch !!!! But away from the loch i am a reasearcher and have spent hours studying the mystery but i beleive in having a good time when im there!!! I just hope if i ever see a hump one day i havnt had too many tennrnts so i can take a good video lol ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, do you mean Tennents Super - that insane beer in the dark blue can?

      Delete
    2. Tennents? You'll need something stronger than that to see Nessie!

      Delete
  37. Lol no the normal tennents is enough. The cabin park fridge is full on arrival. Had many an evening with a barby and a roaring fire looking out over the loch in a daze haha. And always a bottle of whisky in cupboard for night cap !!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Having worked these issues for many years...since the early 1970s...and having implemented rather involved image processing for the Dr. Rines for the 1972 CALTECH "flipper" frame...for the American Academy of Science (AAS)...I am able to confirm the existence of elasmosuar-plesiosaur type animals in Lakes Okanagan...Ness...Champlain...Memphremagog and Manitboa..etc...

    ...of particular interest is the extraction of an animal BENEATH the bubble stream....identified in In Search of series...Season One...Episode 20:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCCw7PIi57Y ...image processed from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCCw7PIi57Y

    Clifford Anthony Paiva BS MS
    BSM Research Associates
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUWaEUVknk

    ReplyDelete
  39. My memory tells me I have seen the 63 LNIB clip of the monster in the shallows.

    Somewhere on TV or in a old VHS documentary.

    It's filmed from over a mile away and the film's grain and theshimmering heat haze make it difficult to ascertain what it is, but with modern technology it might be possible to enhance the image if the film still exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My understanding from Dick Raynor is that some of the LNIB films were sent to the Academy of Applied Sciences in 1972 with the aim of enhancing them at the NASA Jet Propulsion Labs. These apparently were never returned and the 1963 film may well have been amongst them. But ultimately, its whereabouts are unknown.

      Delete