Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Review Of "The Missing Evidence: The Loch Ness Monster"

British broadcaster Channel 5 televised the next in their series "Missing Evidence" on Monday, and Nessie was the subject of choice for their investigation. I have seen many a documentary over the years and the trend has, not surprisingly, been towards the sceptical. This programme very much continued that trend.

The program followed several threads of enquiry which were designed to lead the viewer to the conclusion that there's no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster.


Well, not quite. Arrayed against a line up of sceptically minded guests was Gordon Holmes, the one person who held out that a large creature of some description inhabited Loch Ness. Gordon's 2007 video naturally featured, but he was also filmed pursuing his latest hunting ideas. That meant a foray along the shores of the loch at night time. I like that idea, I have promoted it on this blog many a time.

Gordon trained a high powered lamp onto the loch in the hope of catching a sight of the creature. Quite how he planned to deploy the device and capture evidence was not made clear, but more power to his elbow, I say. His well known video was discussed, with the theory that it (and a nearby, similar disturbance) was the now ubiquitous seal. Gordon himself is not of this opinion. He thinks he filmed two members of a species of giant eel.

However, the main narration thread involved well known sceptic, Adrian Shine, as we were taken through a brief history of the phenomenon and Adrian's theories on it. Cue a whistle stop tour starting at St. Columba and spending an inordinate amount of time at the "Plesiosaur" and "Surgeon's Photo" stations.

Perhaps it is just my well worn familiarity with the subject, but it was a bit tedious watching the plesiosaur being trotted out again and being shot down to the exclusion of all other potential candidates. Again, no mention of the other alternatives, giving the unseasoned viewer the impression that if you disprove plesiosaurs, you disproved everything animal.

I hesitate to mention the Atlantic Sturgeon which inevitably gets mentioned when Adrian is around. But, you bet, it got the mandatory mention, but there is no evidence that such a creature has ever been in Loch Ness, and even if it had, Adrian himself admits it only forms a tiny part of the sightings database.

So, of all the various pieces of film and photo evidence that have passed our eyes, which ones were analysed? Only those which suited the sceptical theme and that meant the Surgeon's Photo and the 1972 Flipper Photo. I don't doubt this story is of interest to those unfamiliar with the subject, so I guess they are always going to turn up. My only wish is that the main man who actually exposed the photograph, Alastair Boyd, got the credit or, better still, did the talking himself.

One thing I did find interesting about the flipper analysis (by Mike Hartshorne), was his attempts to enhance the original photo using modern image processing software. Even this could not match the retouched flipper photo, which is not surprising.


Speaking of databases, Charles Paxton's ongoing work on a comprehensive sightings analysis was featured, and this was new to Nessie documentaries. The program promised some breakthrough evidence, which I shall come to later. I had attended Charles' recent talk on the same database work, so some of what was said was interesting, but Charles had already told me he planned to publish his findings in an appropriate science journal.

In other words, this documentary was probably not the prime place for full disclosure. Either way, Charles said his work neither proves or disproves the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. However, the multi-hump genre was mentioned as one statistical cluster than predominates in calm weather.

One may assume that was the case because multiple humps are harder to spot in rough, choppy waters, but this was taken to be a sign that all such cases were boat wakes. A seeming contradiction then ensued. The documentary switched to the FloWave machine run by Edinburgh University which can reproduce various wave effects. This mechanical tank allowed waves of various forms to be driven against each other to produce standing waves.

We were told that the topology of Loch Ness allowed for boat wakes to reflect off the loch sides to produce these effects. But I don't think that is the case, more likely the waves just dissipate as they reach the shores. Any standing wave effects are more likely to come from interacting boat wakes.

Those seals got a mention again when Charles told us the average reported length of a sighted object was 16 feet. This seemed good enough for Adrian to raise the matter of seals as a source of single hump reports and even the odd land sighting. He mentioned the creature moving in front of pony carts, which I take to be a reference to the 1919 Jock Forbes story. He had estimated the creature slithering past them to be at least 12 feet long. But seals are only a few feet long, so we are assured he was way out in his estimate - despite having the width of the road as a ruler!


Adrian then declared there was one or more seals in Loch Ness during the manic year of 1934 to keep the story going. Again, there is no evidence that seals were in Loch Ness during that period. These inquisitive, frequent surfacers would have most surely been seen and photographed while Loch Ness was under intense scrutiny. Adrian states there were reports of seals but does not mention who and where.

But I suspect one of them was the claimed sighting by notorious hoaxer, Marmaduke Wetherell, creator of the dubious hippo tracks and the Surgeon's photograph. I would not trust his account any further than I could throw him and the seal theory was a tactic of  his employer, the Daily Mail, to gracefully opt out of the hunt after the debacle of the hippopotamus tracks.

I'll tell you what though, Loch Ness seemed to be host to all manner of creatures between 1933 and 1934. We have Adrian's sturgeon and seals on patrol but we also had Albert Jack's swimming elephants.

Why this theory was included in the program was beyond me, it is so daft that even the narrator felt compelled to argue against it. The theory was that Bertram Mills would take his circus elephants for dips in Loch Ness and fool a lot of people into thinking the back and trunk were the classic head-neck.

It's a pity they didn't try and argue against the other sceptical theories to add some balance to the program. In fact, it would have been better to edit out Albert Jack's ramblings and get Gordon Holmes (or someone else) to have a go!


That brings us to a fellow called Chris French. He is Professor of Psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London and he is a vocal, ardent and prestigious sceptic. I have seen him before on other programs debunking other mysteries, so I presume the Loch Ness Monster is not his specialist subject. His assignment was to go beyond the seals, waves and elephants to add the "icing" of misperception.

First of all, he went through the expectations of our brains, false memories, the suggestibility of memory and the influence of cultural imagery. The implication of this was that the brain is not a perfect recording device and will fill in any gaps with preconceived notions about the Loch Ness Monster.

In an attempt to demonstrate how memories can be manipulated, French set up an experiment where pairs of volunteers watched a staged robbery, discussed the contents of the video and were then tested on their recall.

As it turned out, one of the pair was a "stooge" who would suggest false information to the other person. As a result, the majority of volunteers got some things wrong. They thought a gun was there when it was not, likewise somebody stacking shelves and a certain type of jacket were not there.

What was then attempted looked like a sceptic's version of "bait and switch". The robbery video was replaced by an object on Loch Ness. The stooge feeding false information was replaced by the plesiosaur imagery witnesses allegedly carry in their minds. We were then invited to accept that this is how birds, logs and waves become dinosaurs.

But in a narrative twist, Charles Paxton revealed that comparisons of retold eyewitness testimonies, often decades apart, were unexpectedly consistent and did not grow with the telling. Charles regarded this as a "mystery" and we did not get the pleasure of seeing Mr. French trying to explain this away.

My own view of this is simple. Dramatic events, such as seeing a real, large creature will burn into the memory more readily and have a greater permanence. You will know this yourselves, memorable events, be they good or bad, are retained better in our memories. Why Mr. French did not address this as a real aspect of eyewitness perception is also a "mystery" to me.

As for the attempt to reframe the experiment in a Loch Ness setting, I am far from convinced. A dark object against the back drop of uncomplicated, homogeneous water is not going to tax the memory as much as a complex robbery scene in a shop. A supposed idea of a dinosaur is a far cry from someone beside you feeding misinformation. Moreover, this theory does not explain close up sightings where opportunities for memory gaps are at a minimum. And, lastly, the theory is unfalsifiable, which is not where objective, critical thinking should end up.


But Chris French left his most dubious theory to the end and this was our supposed revelation from Charles Paxton's database. Using an annual chart of sightings since 1933, he claimed that the number of sightings rose and fell with various monster films. The obvious one is King Kong from 1933, but I have covered that canard in a previous article.

The other mentioned film was one I had never heard of called "The Giant Behemoth" which was released in 1959. Now sightings subsequently increased into the 1960s, but we don't need a little watched B-movie to explain that coincidence. The Dinsdale film of 1960 and the arrival of the LNIB in 1962 to improve the collecting of sightings is all you need to know.

It was also mentioned that the much watched "X-Files" was responsible for an uptick in Nessie sightings. However, this run of 202 episodes ran from 1993 to 2002, which is a pretty broad spread for making any comparisons. Moreover, not many of these episodes dealt with lake cryptids. Ultimately, I would like to see his graph of supposed correlations and particularly how well it stacks against monster films which see no increase in sightings.

So, after an hour of trying to convince me that Nessie did not exist, I still believe Nessie exists. Then again, I am a diehard who will fight his corner. The man on the Clapham Omnibus may come to a different conclusion, especially if the argument was as imbalanced as it was on Channel 5.

As the program drew to a close, Adrian Shine reminded us of those three sonar contacts obtained during Operation Deepscan. He said he still did not know what they were, but that this did not mean they were monsters. This was probably the nearest admission from "Missing Evidence" that there is yet a mystery to be solved in Loch Ness.


  1. The Giant Behemoth is a strange choice. I used to love monster movies and had never heard of it. Gorgo had a much wider distribution, not to mention Godzilla


    1. The Giant Behemoth is a great british monster film. They put an american actor, Gene Evans, oddly enough (any relation, lol) in order to tart up its appeal to american audience no doubt.

      One great thing about 50's early 60's british monster and horror films is that no matter how goofy they may be in the effects department, there's no denying they're always done with loads of style and atmosphere

      Jon, Long Island

  2. The 'monster movie' hypothesis was laughable stuff and shouldn't have made it past the programme editor. Absolute nonsense.

    Was it Channel 5 who put out that awful 'great experiment' programme a few years back where they dazzled us with the revelation that if you float a model plesiosaur past a lot of people, a lot of people will report seeing a plesiosaur?

    1. Yes, "The Ultimate Experiment" documentary.


    2. Some strangely thought the animatronics model was waves! So much for the "Nessie" effect.

  3. This comment was submitted by Geordie Sceptic on another article, but is better suited here:

    Hello.... not sure if this will get posted as i seem to be public enemy number 1 (or maybe joint number 1 with ekm).

    I watched the documentary last night and found a few bits quite interesting but also a lot of it a bit baffling. Why so much focus yet again on the surgeon's photo model submarine story? Isn't that one now known by everyone? They made a good point about it crystallising the public perception of nessie as a plesiosaur but there wasn't the need to say a lot more than that.

    I think the psychology experiment was relevant but they could have made it far more relevant by showing a water based scenario and had a group of 5 people watching the video to see if one stooge could have persuaded 4 others rather than just 1. That's what I would have done anyway.

    And the biological statistician - I was expecting a lot more analysis from him. All we got was sighting spikes (no sht sherlock) and a brief comment near the end about Nessie reports not changing much in size over time. That was a bit weak.

    And a documentary about Nessie evidence with no reference to the Dinsdale film? Seriously?! I was out of the room making a cup of tea at one point, does anyone know if I am right in thinking there was no mention of the Dinsdale film?

    1. Totally agree with you GB the Dinsdale film clip being omitted. Having said that, it might have been a copyright issue.

    2. A clip from the Dinsdale film was visible on a monitor behind the photo expert, I would conclude he has looked at the film and has an opinion. I suspect that opinion was inconclusive or against the sceptical angle of the show. maybe GB could track him and ask him? after all him gave an opinion on photo's already known to be a bit iffy.

  4. I think everyone -- believers and non-believers alike -- need to bear in mind that these programs are assembled in a television factory by writers and editors who are assigned topics to quickly research and then regurgitate for a general audience. Of course we'll ask, "Where was the Dinsdale film??? How could they POSSIBLY leave that out???" The answer is very simple: these shows aren't put together by "Nessie Experts"; they're cranked out by dispassionate folks on a deadline, largely using resources like Wikipedia.

  5. They should've looked at Wikipedia a bit more closely then to discern the fact Loch Ness is a lake rather than a river. The pre-show blurb seemed confused over this minor detail.

  6. No arguments there. I've seen many instances where the photograph shown doesn't correspond to the voice-over, or the footage (Dinsdale, Raynor) is flipped, or the wrong name is used ("Montague Wetherall"????).

    These producers are assigned a list of shows to be assembled over the course of a year/season/series; and like hot dogs, the casings are filled with whatever content is scrapped out of the barrel and then mass-produced for cheap, tasty, and nutrition-free consumption.

  7. I was pleased that the deepscan report led on the unidentified sonar hits, rather than implying deepscan disproved the monster and then mentioning the hits as an afterthought if at all, which is more common.
    The elephant theory is rather old, no? Wasn't it one of the explanations given for the surgeon's photograph back in the day, before the toy submarine was exposed? I'm pretty sceptical, elephants are highly recognisable animals and unless they were always seen swimming mostly submerged in deep water I would have thought someone would have spotted them for what they were.

  8. The psychology experiment was very poor science. It only served to demonstrate persuasion and suggestibility; neither of which are relevant to the accurate reporting of a sighting.

    Far more relevant would have been to have shown the subjects footage in isolation and asked them to recall details later. It all seemed a bit pointless to me.

  9. I thought that if they were going the cultural route then, by the time the 1960s came round, they should have considered what was on TV rather than at the cinema. Although I think that Whyte and Dinsdale were important in the revival of interest anyway.
    But what of the statistical prediction that around ten creatures of greater than 7 feet in length remain to be discovered? What if one of them is some kind of marine amphibian?


  10. Hello again. Further to my initial comments there are a few things I'd like to add. Firstly I think if a documentary is going to give so much time to a very knowledgeable sceptic like Shine, then it's only correct to give as much time to a knowledgeable believer too, and give them time to put the pro-Nessie vade forward. And I don't mean a few snippets from Gordon Holmes, who I personally don't believe comes across as a convincing expert. I am in no doubt that the shot of him creeping around lochside with a bright lamp was designed to make him and other hunters look silly.

    I agree that there was an unfair implication that if you disprove plesiosaurs then you disprove Nessie. Where were the other theories?

    All in all the programme felt like it was rushed and lacking in balance. It ended in the same way Chris Packham's nessie film a few years ago ended - telling the viewer it's a myth but saying that people will still believe anyway (perhaps a get out clause?).

    So, as a sceptic I am very frustrated by this documentary, even though it was 90% sceptical.

    One last thing, GB - your article here has a clear tone of exasperation and annoyance that the material was so biased. Think about that feeling when you post your articles.... you have at last experienced the exact feeling that I (and I suspect many other sceptics) experience when I see yet another article arguing for the Bright photo, a monster on land, the Dinsdale film not showing a boat etc. Your articles are every bit as partisan as the Channel 5 documentary.... can you at least feel some of our pain? :-)

    1. So, everyone is frustrated.

      If channel 5 intention was to produce a 90% sceptical documentary, then so be it. That is their right, as is the intentions of this blog or any of the numerous sceptic blogs out there.

      The intention of this blog is not so much "internal" balance (as one desired of the programme) but "external" balance on a wider scale to counteract what appears to be (to me) a majority of sceptical websites.

  11. Well written GB. Old hat again. Wasted time on surgeon known hoax yawn yawn. At least something diffrent when Holmes video was talked about. Some people have said its wind but the fella on it was sure it was creatures.. then it was seals it claimed....hmmm im certain that he didnt video seals

  12. The bank robbery bit was irrelevant i feel. Nessie witnesses dont have a staged person adding bits on. And it always amazes me people tell people what they saw when they wernt there themselves. How does anyone know what somebody else saw. And if people are seeing boatwakes and waves that look like monsters constantly for 80 years then why have we gone 18 months without a reported sighting????

    1. Ok if we're allowed to expand out a few of the specifics now (and it appears from Jake's unchallenged posts that we are), I'd like to say I think the Holmes video could very easily show 2 seals, as he appeared to acknowledge himself (though I felt his comments were edited somewhat during that clip).

      The bank robbery was definitely not "irrelevant". It could have been a lot more relevant, but it was not irrelevant, because it showed that people can be persuaded to remember non-existent features in a scene, provided someone else says they saw that feature. This is very relevant for group sighting reports when people have been in contact with eachother either during or after the event. A vocal eyewitness could convince others they also saw - for example - a log moving in the waves actually moving up and down independently, or perhaps bending and straightening its "neck". The result of this would be a very convincing group sighting report, with believers pointing out that all the eyewitnesses saw evidence which discounted any possibility that they had merely been viewing a log.

      Finally, it has been argued that the multi humped serpent sightings have disappeared because people can now recognise boat wakes more easily, now the loch is generally viewed through more sceptical eyes. People don't jump to conclusions as often as they used to when the monster possibility was entertained by a much higher % of the populace.

      One last comment on here - perhaps the definition of a sceptic is someone who wants all opinions equally represented and discussed. It's about examining all the evidence dispassionately and even welcoming the views of those we disagree with.

    2. I emailed Gordon Holmes and he is of the opinion that he filmed a giant eel, not a seal.

      Your comment about vocal co-witnesses is completely unfalsifiable, how are we expected to test this? Can you give a solid example?

      I thought you critical thinkers set a higher standard than us "believers"?

      I think any drop in multi-humps sightings is indeed down to documentaries like this. However, I point you to my comment above when an animatronic Nessie was dismissed as waves! Seems you can get too sceptical in your interpretation of what is out there ....

      No, that is not the definition of a sceptic.

    3. Hello again. I am replying because GB has directly asked me some questions, not to "clog up" the thread. If you want me to stop responding my assumption is you will also stop engaging me in conversation.

      Maybe Gordon didn't film seals, who knows. Next time you email him, feel free to tell him I don't think he videod giant eels. I us.
      d to go fishing and often saw dead eels on the surface. If giant eels existed in the loch I believe we'd have a dead specimen by now. Yes, I am aware that a hoaxer planted 2 large sea eels a few years ago.

      GB, you ask me about vocal co-winesses. I'm not sure whether you're being entirely serious but I will explain again and try to be clearer.

      On the documentary they showed pairs of people watching a videoof a robbery. Unknown to one of the two in each pair, the other one was a plant - a stooge. After watching the video the pairs discussed what they had seen. The stooge invented 3 things which didn't happen in the video - the holding of a gun, the wearing of a leather jacket, and the stacking of shelves. None of these 3 things occurred in the video, but when interviewed separately afterwards, the non-stooge recounted these 3 features as though they had seen them with their own eyes. When in actual fact the features had only entered the memory because the stooge had planted it there. How does this relate to Nessie? Well, you know how you thought the log in the video moved independently from the waves? You certainly suggested you could see that, GB. Well let's say you saw a log with your wife and children, and you declared that it moved independently from the waves. This experiment suggests there is a strong chance your wife and children could "remember" the same thing when discussing the sighting afterwards. That's where the relevance of the experiment lies. Obviously I cannot point to specific cases and say this definitely did happen, but it's food for thought, surely.

      If someone saw waves that were in fact a fake Nessie... well, whatever. Just further emphasises how hard it is to know what you're viewing on the loch.

      I got thinking about the ecological statistician's graph of aquatic animal discoveries, and the suggestion that 9 may still be waiting to be discovered. I wonder how different the graph and numbers would be if he limited the stats to only discoveries made in freshwater lakes? Bet it wouldn't extrapolate out to 9 in waiting.

    4. I cant believe anyone thinks holmes videod a seal lol sums people up !!

    5. I agree it doesn't look like a seal or seals. However, it does look similar to otter movement - a more common animal in and around the loch than seals are.

      That said, i am even more convinced by the wind effect theory. I've seen similar on the loch myself.

    6. I don't know if Gordon Holmes reads these comments, but I'll leave him to defend his views on eels and seals.

      I don't accept your imgainary scenario of myself and family watching a log. The crucial difference is your scenario of suggestibilty happens DURING the event when the object is still visible and suggestions can be cross-checked against what your senses are telling you.

      The TV experiment's suggestions happened AFTER the event when the co-witness only had memories to rely and no current visual input to cross-reference.

      In other words, imagine the "stooge" tried to suggest there was a gun while the video was playing, it would not work.

      As for me saying the object in the video was moving independent of the water ... have you established beyond doubt that it was not?

      I am glad you acknowledge an object could be misidentified as a wave. This argument cuts both ways.

      You would have to ask Charles about his species extrapolations.

    7. Quite simply I am talking about you and family staring at an object briefly (perhaps with one of you saying "What on earth this that?" beforehand.... then you immediately afterwards saying that you saw the object moving itself. I don't imagine many eyewitnesses do a running commentary of what they see DURING the incident, do you? Aren't you a proponent of people being open mouthed and struck by "shock and awe" during their viewings, after all?

    8. You said "Well let's say you saw a log with your wife and children, and you declared that it moved independently from the waves."

      That sounds like "during" not "after" the event. If not, you have to make yourself clearer.

      No, I don't expect a "running" commentary, either.

      You are beginning to misprepresent the views of others. Go back and read what I said about "shock and awe".

  13. Disagree geordie. No chance of seals in my opinion. I see them regular at my mates caravan on coast. They dont move like that. And there was no reports of sealson the loch at that time, i asked my mate who works on the loch. And im sure seals would of bin spotted making ther way that far down the loch and propably wud of bin shot. And im sure mr holmes wud of seen the seals pop up after his video, they dont go far without uphending. 100% no seals for me!

  14. And most sightings are from people on their own so nobody to change their minds so i disagree entirely. And personally i know this is not right because i had an experience on loch ness 8 or 9 years ago that i remembered near enough exactly as it was. And at the time it was something to remember geordie....a 15ft monster complete with head and neck!!!!

    1. Jake, you need to send me a sighting report.

    2. Jake, if you read my posts carefully, you'll see that you don't actually disagree with me at all. I am not saying that the experiment applies to single person reports. I am saying (read carefully and you will understand this) that the experiment relates to the possibility that groups of witnesses can influence eachother. So therefore the argument that a report is really strong evidence if more than one person reports the same features MAY not necessarily be true.

      Read posts more carefully and don't just jump on them because they are sceptical without really understanding the points being made.

    3. Dont try and patronize me geordie. I read your post carefully and disagree with 90% of what u say actually. Maybe u shud read my posts more carefully old bean

  15. Sorry GB i fell asleep. Yes a 15ft monster a few hundred yards from me. Unfortunetly it wasnt real, it was a spoof one for chanel 5 :) but nobody knew at the time !!!! Heart in mouth moment lol and no tennents had !! Remember it like yesterday

  16. But proof what i saw did not change when it came on tv several months later. Exactly whaylt i saw at the time. So sceptics can like it or lump it lopll

  17. Hey there jake. You sure about this comment? Theres no conclusive nessie footage known to mankind so how can u have seen proof on tv? ?

  18. Yes 100n% positive what i saw. Her name was Lucy. :)

  19. To all. It's not a widely known fact, but the unwrapped "purple one" within the Quality Street chocolate box was designed to look exactly like a Loch Ness Monster sighting many decades ago which was experienced by one of the original design team. This is 100% not a joke or wind up. If you get hold of the right member of staff within Nestlé (previously Rowntree Mackintosh), you will be able to obtain verification of this fact.

    1. I don't mind you posting that, but Geordie Sceptic is allergic to nuts


    2. Ha ha. Not had any QS for a few years but will keep a look out this Christmas. If I am offered one I will make a beeline for a purple one. Not only are they the best one in the selection, but apparently they are monster-shaped! No nut allergy here. If I had a nut allergy I'd avoid cryptozoology websites (joke!).

  20. I think the flipper photos are genuinely of Nessie, see http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html:
    "That evidence is discussed at length in my article,
    "The Case for the Loch Ness Monster: The Scientific Evidence"
    Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16(2): 225--246 (2002)
    Among other points made in this article, evidence is presented
    that the "flipper" photos have not been "retouched" to show something
    not present in the original photos. Charles Wyckoff, the photographic expert
    on the Rines team points out that the only manipulation was to superpose
    several transparencies filtered through different colors. Alan Gillespie, who did
    this "computer enhancing" at Jet Propulsion Lab, pointed out
    that the flipper shape can be seen in the original unenhanced transparency,
    which was published in WILDLIFE, March 1976, article by Nigel Sitwell, "The Loch Ness Monster evidence", pp. 101-109.
    The "retouching" allegation was first made in an article in DISCOVER magazine, which refused then to print Wyckoff's letter of protest,
    a copy of which is now available here. (http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/WyckoffToD2color.pdf)"

    1. I suspect some here won't resist temptation to start another thread ...

    2. I think Henry already has....

    3. Mr Bauer. I see from your website that you also still believe in the surgeon's photo. Do you also believe that the Marmaduke Wetherell footpints were made by Nessie?

    4. Surgeons photo is Real.The "hoax" is a Hoax.

  21. Why is that anonymous?

  22. The Missing Skeptic Evidence series can be interesting at some degree but there is a shaming skeptikal feeling by the narrator and some people interviewed which don't hide their repulsion against conspiracy realities. For example if they are right in one single tiny case the episode will finish with the mood that the entire mystery is solved. That's not correct but you know, skeptics are like fanatics, they lack something like castrated...

  23. This programme adopted a sceptical position from the get go, and then set about trying to prove it. Not good science, and not objective. Adrian Shine was, as usual, highlight (scepticism excepted) and the scenery was great.
    It maybe would have swayed my judgement if I'd been sitting on the fence, but with poor science (Mr Shine's science excepted) and a huge body of information totally ignored, the square peg didn't quite fit in the round hole for me.