Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Henry Bauer Reviews A Monstrous Commotion




Long time Loch Ness researcher, Henry Bauer, got in touch with me recently to pass on his review of Gareth William's book to me. Henry has been involved in Loch Ness Monster research for over fifty years since he first picked up Tim Dinsdale's "Loch Ness Monster" in 1961. Quite possibly, apart from perhaps Rip Hepple, he is the longest involved researcher of Nessie alive today.

Henry is the author of the well known book, "The Enigma of Loch Ness" and believes the creatures are a large, formerly (before last Ice Age) marine species, related either to plesiosaurs or to leatherback turtles. In his review, Henry is not so favourably disposed to Gareth's book as others have been and detects the overt influence of sceptical advisers. So, feel free to download his PDF review at this link and offer your comments below.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




9 comments:

  1. I never knew Henry was a believer, I have read his book and thought he was down the middle, great to see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The rewier's points are mostly well-taken, but as a matter of personal reaction, I find it difficult to believe that he cannot see "the dog" the in the Gray photograph. It's very easy to see, and, once seen, is nearly impossible to un-see (depending on the quality of the print). "The dog" has, of course, been debunked here on the LNM blog, and I am surprised that the reviewer did not consult this site's detailed discussion of the Gray photo. And, as mentioned...I just have a difficult time in believing Bauer's claim that he can't "see the dog" in the Gray photo...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The dog has never been that clear to me. I have to struggle to see it, and I also think the question of where the rest of the dog is to be a fair question.

      Delete
    2. After decades of people telling us it was a dog, it is now apparently a swan. it is all just a game.

      Delete
    3. If Henry Bauer was looking at the Heron-Allen Photo,rather than a touched up Photo with increased contrast then maybe he could not see "The Dog".

      Delete
  3. I liked the book, although there was nothing new in it (which I think was kinda the point), and I thought it's tone was fairly balanced albeit it was clear the author wasn't a believer.

    I think Henry in his review essay is as guilty of biased slant as anyone. He states the Dinsdale film "quite obviously" doesn't show a boat. Let's be fair, there's nothing 'quite obvious' in that film whatever side you come down on. To say it quite obviously doesn't show a boat is to strongly imply those who give the boat theory credence (myself included) are a bit thick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I get people telling me that is the best anti-Nessie book yet, but the author himself told me it was written to be a balanced work.

      As for the Dinsdale film , I don't know if it is relevant, but Henry saw the original film, which may create a better impression.

      Delete
  4. Great point by RP about no body to be seen, and if it was a swan then im sure you would see very clearly a swan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't like the book. It is beautifully written and extraordinarily well referenced, but, my God, how boring. I had to struggle to finish it.

    However, there are a couple of points in Henry's review which really need to be taken up. Firstly, the Dinsdale film. The only people who cannot see that this is a boat are the people who are totally sold on the Loch Ness Monster. It is clearly a boat and earlier this year I saw and filmed a very similar sequence. Ask ordinary people in the street what the 'parallel to shore' sequence shows and they will say boat. The fact that Henry clings on to evidence which has been totally debunked is extraordinary. He still thinks Rines photographed flippers. Read my book, Henry!

    Moving on, though to one part of his review which is absolutely diabolical. He says Adrian Shine unscrupulously took over my exhibition. This is a total distortion of the facts - for the second time as stated in my book. The Bremners stole my intellectual property in the exhibition in the early eighties. When I left Adrian was already consulting for the exhibition and I had established a royalty to him/the project for the use of their material. Adrian does not have an unscrupulous bone in his body and I take deep offence at Henry Bauer not checking his facts before writing this statement.

    I suggest anyone wanting the facts about what happened at the exhibition should read pages c8m3zz54-5542.html and c9m3-555x8247.html, the former already having put Henry Bauer right in 2011 and the second what really happened to MY exhibition. To get to these pages you need to put http://lochnessunderstood.com/ in front of those page codes.

    I suggest they are well worth reading to put the record straight. Bauer calling Adrian unscrupulous is absolutely diabolical.

    ReplyDelete