Sunday, 19 January 2020

Tim Dinsdale's other Nessie Sightings



Tim Dinsdale is the most famous of all monster hunters undertaking a search that went from 1960 to his untimely death in 1987 having mounted dozens of expeditions to the loch, ran operations for the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau, numerous lectures promoting the mystery and writing five books on the subject.

I stumbled upon this Pathe newsreel clip of Tim recounting some of his sightings and suspected I was not fully familiar with the full roster. With that in mind, I pulled out my copy of Tim's "Monster Hunt" which was the revised version of his "The Leviathans" produced for the American market and was published in 1972. Now I knew of his second 1971 encounter, but the other reports had slipped my mind. I count four sightings which I now quote and examine below.


FIRST SIGHTING

Of course, Tim is best known for the hump he filmed from Foyers village on the 23rd April 1960. This established him as a monster hunter and put the monster back on the map after the war and though the 1950s did produce some memorable pictures, Tim's film was the catalyst for years of increased scrutiny at the loch by professionals and amateurs alike. Since this article is more focused on his other sightings, I will do no more than reproduce the sketch from his first book  and leave aside controversies about boats, JARIC and so on.






SECOND SIGHTING

This is taken from "Monster Hunt" page 211, no date is given but it would appear to have happened in 1969.

On two occasions during the course of this splendid and erratic expedition, when we had all been living aboard, we had seen water disturbances which were inexplicable, and once when driving along the north shore road shortly after sunset Mr. Smith, my wife, and all four children had seen a large humped object moving through the water just offshore, creating a wash. I stopped the car, jumped out, and ran back to where the trees no longer obscured the view, at the sighting place - only to find that the object had disappeared. 

This would appear to be the lowest key of these sightings. I suspect Tim had some uncertainty about it due to the simple fact that he may not have made any visual contact with the object. It would appear that, as the driver of the car, he was concentrating on the road ahead.

This and the other sightings occurred at a time of high activity at the loch in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Loch Ness Investigation Bureau in 1967 had received a donation of $20,000 from an American organisation plus another £1000 which would add up to nearly £150,000 in today's money. This led to much activity and eyes on the loch, including the eyes of Tim Dinsdale.


THIRD SIGHTING

This event occurred on the 30th August 1969 and is quoted from "Monster Hunt" page 224.

On August 30th, while out drifting at the mouth of Urquhart Bay late one afternoon, I spotted a tall, fat `telegraph pole' sticking up from the water, perhaps half a mile distant. I shouted 'look at that' to my eldest son and Murray Stuart, another experienced monster hunter, who were standing in the cockpit, as I dived into the cabin for my binoculars.

It was choppy at the time, and equipment was safely cushioned on the seats. I heard both comment excitedly . . . 'My God, look at it go. ' In a matter of seconds the object had streaked across the water, disappearing behind a promontory near Urquhart Castle. It was such a brief experience - and there had been no time to focus cameras - but it had been entirely real. Starting the motor, we plunged through the choppy water but found no evidence of anything on the surface. Discussing the sighting, we concluded it must have been the head and neck of one of the larger animals.

It must have stood ten feet at least out of the water. My son's eyesight was exceptional, and Murray sketched the object he had seen which he declared thickened near the water, curving slightly at an angle when moving fast. My own view was momentary; and since I did not see the movement or the curvature, I believed the neck was moving away from us when first sighted. Then it must have turned to the right just as I went into the cabin. In ten years it was only my second physical sighting, but again, it was no figment of the imagination. Three of us stood witness to the fact. 

Certainly, this was a more substantial report as Tim did see this pole like object in Urquhart Bay. The half a mile distance does not make for a high grade sighting though and he saw it only briefly. However, the other two witnesses had a better view, though I do not think the sketch by Murray Stuart has ever been seen in any publication. It looks like they would have had the Castle as a frame of reference hence aiding their estimation of the ten foot length of the presumed neck. I have discussed pole like sightings in a previous article, to which we now add this account.


FOURTH SIGHTING

This appears to have been Tim's final sighting on the 6th September 1971 at Foyers Point on the south shore. It is quoted from "Monster Hunt" page 263 and looks like his best sighting.

Under motor power in WATER HORSE I was moving through rough water near Foyers, about mid-afternoon. Noise from the hydro works there was considerable, and the weather stormy - quite the wrong conditions for observation. Standing at the wheel I glanced to starboard and instantly recognised a shape I had seen so often in a photograph - the famous 'Surgeon's Photograph' of 1934 - but it was alive and muscular!

Incredulous, I stood for a moment without moving. All I could do was stare. Then I saw the neck-like object whip back underwater, only to reappear briefly, then go down in a boil of white foam. There was a battery of five cameras within inches of my right hand, but I made no move towards them. The surprise of the encounter immobilised me and so upset my balance I ran the boat onto the shingle of Foyers Point. Angrily, I cursed my own stupidity and shook off the paralysis.

I put on my life jacket and dropped anchor, then switched on the tape recorder to capture details of the experience, before I forgot them. The day following I checked distances and the size of waterbirds. There had been seagulls floating close to the head and neck, and my estimate of range could not have been mistaken. It was 200 yards away - perhaps a little more - and the neck extended four feet or so vertically.

There was no freshwater animal in Britain which looked like it - that was absolutely certain. It had the 'Surgeon's Photograph' shape precisely, but was a little more thick set, and the head, or extremity, was curiously rounded. I had not seen a recognisable head, but the object could not have been a tail because of its behaviour and the direction of movement. To have been a tail it would have been going backwards! 

No, I had seen the foremost parts of the Beast, and the experience proved to me that at close quarters it would be necessary to train a camera like a sub-machine gun - to shoot instantly and directionally. It was possible to do this, and the technique would obviate the need to obscure one's vision. It would be almost impossible at close quarters not to stare, and stare, with both eyes open. This explained why excited witnesses from shore had failed to take photographs.

They could not bring themselves to interrupt vision. We had several witnesses arrive at Achnahannet who had actually been holding cameras at the time of a sighting. The tape I had recorded proved to be convincing, and it was broadcast nationally on 'New Worlds,' a BBC scientific programme, and was reported in the press. The Guardian covered it, and as this newspaper in Britain has a reputation equivalent to that of the London Times, I felt we had made some progress. 

Tim's sketch of the creature appeared in his other book "Loch Ness Monster" and is shown below. This encounter appeared to last only seconds but was his closest encounter at a distance of 200 yards. Sceptics may dismiss this as nothing more than a bird (as they may aver for the third sighting) but this needlessly ignores Tim's 11 years of experience recognising and discounting the various phenomena on the loch which can deceive. Not all eyewitnesses are equal in ability and discernment.



Others have accused Tim of being desperate to see the monster and this high expectation would have led to self-deception. Again, apart from having no proof for this assertion, it unfairly discounts years of experience and one must ask, if he was so desperate to see the monster, why did it take so long for conditions and psychology to provide such an opportunity after eleven years?

I would also point out the condition that has been postulated on this blog before and is here affirmed by Tim Dinsdale himself. I refer to the "shock and awe" syndrome where eyewitnesses see the monster and are literally rooted to the spot transfixed by the sight, even if their cameras are lying right beside them. Sceptics have scoffed at this and brush it aside as an excuse to explain why not enough eyewitnesses produce more close up pictures. If it can happen to Tim Dinsdale, it can happen to anyone.

So, as far as I can tell, that was his last sighting in the sixteen years before his death. The monster is indeed an elusive beast, though statistically speaking, the hundreds of hours put into actual eyes on the loch should be proportionally rewarded with an admitted dash of luck for good measure. Ted Holiday suggested an average of 400 hours of watching before one got their sight of the creature. As one can guess, not everyone has seen out that benefit.


OTHER ENCOUNTERS

But there were other encounters at the loch which don't quite qualify as sightings but do register in the strange category. Tim has already mentioned the multiple water disturbances which he described as "inexplicable" but we also have this story from 1970 taken from "Monster Hunt" page 231.

One curious incident, however, had both intrigued and frightened us. We were lowering the hydrophone overboard in the immediate vicinity of the 700 foot trench where the big blip had been recorded. After paying out only a couple of hundred feet of wire, the hydrophone appeared to strike some underwater object and bounce along it before continuing its descent. This produced some loud rasping noises through the speaker on the boat which made us jump. There seemed no rational explanation for this, other than a submerged log drifting deep beneath the surface; or alternatively the Monster which we had recorded on sonar coming up to investigate. It was a real experience, and in a small 16 foot overloaded boat a disturbing one. 

Do logs float under the water at depths of 200 feet? They may sink below the 200 foot mark as they progress to the bottom, but no one can be sure what Tim experienced that day fifty years ago. One can look over these reports and come to the conclusion that getting a close and sustained view of the Loch Ness Monster is a task that is not worth the effort. 

Many have invested much in time and money to get such experiences, but not enough to fulfill the mission statement. They got their personal stories, but no more than that. For modern hunters like me, I will watch the loch when I can, but won't be taking months off work, let alone giving up the day job. The way forward for me is automatic trap cameras, watching the loch while we get on with the rest of life.

The heroic efforts of those believers who put in the hard graft on boats and land, directing operations for long hours each day without little break, straining family relations and so on is acknowledged and honoured. Whether we will see their likes again is a matter for debate.



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



58 comments:

  1. There is a film clip of Tim recounting the fourth sighting on YouTube. It is very much as described above and if memory serves me correctly it has the Discovery Channel logo. As always Tim comes across as totally honest. The very fact that as far as I know, he claimed no more sightings over the next 16 years strikes me as proof of his integrity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Others who knew him personally would confirm his honesty and integrity. I never met the man, more's the pity.

      Delete
  2. As in any 'trial', the defence seeks to undermine any eyewitness that may convict their client. It's part of the game. If this approach was always successful, we would never have a conviction based on eyewitness testimony. Even our legal system is more forgiving than our sceptical present, since every eyewitness must be guilty of wishful thinking, lying or hallucination. Imagine the court system if this was the case, in every trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, every eyewitness is guilty until proven innocent - which is never allowed to happen.

      Delete
  3. I've always found this 'desperate to see something so u see it' as complete nonsense!!!! I've bin going to Loch Ness for 20 years and desperate to see something but I never have! !!.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ronald Binns was a particular peddler of this withering theory. If he couldn't break down their testimony, just say they were desparate to see it and hey presto! Problem solved.

      Delete
  4. Yeah like I said.. Its nonsense.. But that word goes very well with Ronald binnns lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. An interesting article indeed .I have always felt that Dinsdale and Holliday didn't get enough recognition for their efforts. I think they were genuinely trying to get to the bottom of it.
    The pole like neck with a very undefined head is mentioned a lot...in the Finlay encounter as well. Dare I mention the 2006 photo (if we accept it as a fast moving animal) falls into this category also.
    I understand that Holliday had a couple of sightings . I wonder is it possible to find any detail...such as you have done for Dinsdale s encounters. As a boy I was introduced to the Loch Ness mystery by my grandmother. She had a conversation with Holliday way back in 1969 in Connemara. She was on a brief holiday and he was part of a film crew investigating creature sightings in that area in small lakes. She said he was very matter of fact and friendly and said he had a couple of sightings himself in Loch Ness. In addition he mentioned that he had been shown a few black and white photos which were taken from a film from many years before. Only when GB wrote about the alleged McRae film did anything make sense to me.
    I'm as unsure as anyone else but the photo sent to GB by a German researcher seems to closely match what my grandmother told me back in the seventies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't class the Finlay case as pole like, I would expect a higher length to width ratio.

      Delete
  6. In all fairness let us not forget Tim's first "sighting"; he even filmed it he was so convinced about what he was seeing, even though it turned out to be just rocks. I'd love to see that film...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't ignore the thousands of sightings by others, including the Government PhD Biologist Professor Tucker who encountered Nessie,and stated that he thinks Nessie is an Elasmosaurus.
      Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Delete
    2. A good observer is very hard to define. Having a PhD in zoology is useful, but I've dealt with very well educated people who are a little cuckoo. In the end, observation is an art and a science.
      Did it make Tim Dinsdale a poor observer because he wished to see something he believed in? Probably not, if you listen to any of his interviews or weigh up his approach as a whole.
      A false positive seemed to turn Adrian Shine into a cynic, which is an extreme reaction as far as I'm concerned. With Tim, he just kept looking.

      Delete
    3. Or did dinsdale become a expert observer because he Saw something To believe in?
      As for shine,who built a bathyscaphe in loch morar,he seems to be pressured into skepticism in some way,maby it's a requirement for job stability,I don't know but his past shows a belief that there's is a group of large animals in both lochs and it's not "sturgeon".
      Same with Raynor.
      Nobody human commits so much time and effort if they are skeptics.
      It would be interesting to run the reverse speech software on the audio skeptics to see what they REALLY think.

      Delete
    4. John, you're giving believers a bad name with this nonsense. Some people just don't believe in the monster - accept it. Some who come on forums with their arguments just want to argue for the sake of it, some to show off their "intellect", some do think they're on some kind of mission to turn around poor benighted believers but I doubt they need to get paid to do it.

      Adrian already has an income from running the Loch Ness Centre, speaking engagements (as did Dinsdale) and whatever else.

      No need for backhanders from the shadowy figures you see everywhere. Leave that stuff to the UFO buffs.



      Delete
    5. I think John has a point. Why the huge turn around in some previously very enthusiastic nessie hunters? It's one point of view. People can be bought, it's a fact. Another might relate to the human psyche, and people who are extremely driven. John's point cannot be proven, but at least it's possible. I have to say I've never thought of that angle before, but then that's what these discussions are about.

      Delete
    6. But to what end, Martin?

      Delete
    7. To what end are the discussions about? Or to what end might someone be bought in this area?

      Delete
    8. The latter. I suppose it's conceivable that,having discovered 'something ' in the Loch, they may want to keep it secret for possible environmental reasons...I don't know why else you might be bribed to be a sceptic. I've often thought that if I ever had a sighting, I might just keep my mouth shut!

      Delete
    9. I wouldn't quite subscribe to the idea myself, but it might be possible to spread disinformation about this phenomena in the same way as is done with UFOs. It keeps a potentially frightening unknown further away from public. I think the Ness phenomena is more wide ranging than 'just' an unknown species. Maybe it's discovery opens too many doors the powers that be would like to see kept shut. Like I say, it's not my personal view, but it's a maybe a point of view.

      Delete
    10. I don't know either :-) Must stop posting late at night.

      Delete
    11. The only reason one would have a disinformation campaign is because the phenomenon in the loch is something disturbing to the public. Yet if that was the case, why let anyone on or near the loch? John's theory is because it is a plesiosaur which disproves evolution. Apart from the fact that the eyewitness testimony does not suggest a plesiosaur, we have had the case of the ceolacanth, presumed extinct, no fossils but it turned up in 1938. That had no effect on the core evolution debate.

      Delete
    12. Well, don't forget that Tim Dinsdale was a big proponent of the plesiosaur archetype. Going so far as to believing a nessie was some form of evolved plesiosauria. And, the majority of eyewitness accounts through the years do suggest plesiosaur type morphology.

      Delete
  7. Just looking again at Dinsdales famous 1960 film on the Nessie and friends group on Facebook. I wonder are people aware he reconstructed the sequence using a boat an hour later. The wakes are totally different. In addition,on this group page ,is an enhanced image of one still from Tim's first film. If it is indeed from the sequence it clearly shows a black ,eel like animal ,with possible flipper appendages,submerged,with just the well known "head or front section" above the water line .

    ReplyDelete
  8. The "Telephone Pole" neck-and-head sightings are very interesting, as they actually verify current thinking about plesiosaurid/elasmosaurid morphology and skeletal reconstructions of their necks. The necks were not super elastic, and the spacing between the neck vertebrae for appropriate cartiliage would seem to be more like what a giraffe can do with their neck. Very intriguing.

    And to think these types of sightings have been witnessed decades long before current views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought current thinking was the Plesiosaur would not have been able to lift its head out of the water?

      Its interesting that he seemed to see the same thing the Surgeons photo purported to show. Does this suggest as many have, that the admission of the surgeons photo as being a hoax, is in fact a hoax itself?

      Delete
  9. The surgeon's photo/model could be viewed as art imitating life, as there were several head-neck sightings in the months prior to the photo's publication.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good article, I was only aware of two sightings. 4 encounters in 30 years seems like the average (Mr Campbell claimed roughly double that). I believe Dinsdale to be a truthful man. Whom knows what he saw? His eyesight was notoriously not 20/20. GB wisely doesn't open that up again here and I don't wish to cast doubt on his beliefs. His film rekindled my own belief when I was about 20 and saw it for the first time. Took another 20 years to become more PH neutral on the mystery. Yet I wonder how many people's lives he affected? Still the best evidence there is in my opinion, a Rorschach test case for every skeptic or believer. What do you see in that film? A monster or the mundane?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I always love eyewitness accounts. The first hand stories from those who spotted Nessie are great to read or listen to. Tim is the kind of person that encourages me to believe he encountered the real thing.

    This blog is the best resource material for such sightings. Does anyone on this blog know of other sources like interviews from eyewitnesses that can be found on the net? Stories like Brock Badgers account or strange happenings on the Loch.

    I would love to come across more eyewitness statements, even obscure stories. Cheers!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you haven't looked already, there is the "classic sightings" tab on the right and an audio file of Ted Holiday interviewing eyewitnesses in the 1960s was on here.

      Delete
    2. I have enjoyed your classic sightings work Roland on several occasions. Great stuff! Greta Finlay's sighting is one that stands out for me.

      Delete
    3. Greta and Harry sighting is one of my absolute favourites... to suggest that it was a deer is absurd...it has to be either a complete lie or a true sighting...no room for error, I think.

      Delete
    4. Am I right in thinking that there was another sighting just up the road on the same day?...Schoolkids or something?

      Delete
    5. Yeah Riitta.. A few hours later in Dores I believe.. Cheers

      Delete
    6. Finlays is a great sighting.. Intrestin them saying it had protrusions from the head... I've always favoured an unknown animal or fish in loch ness...maybe some sort of giant hag fish could give off a head
      with protrusions or something related or new to science .. Cheers

      Delete
    7. Have a listen to the interviews recorded on the Alex Harvey CD. The chat with Mrs Robertson is particularly compelling, ditto the interview with Ian Dunn and Billy Kennedy.

      Delete
    8. RE. the Finlay sighting, yes, Roland covers the newspaper report about the later sighting by schoolkids on this blog :-)

      Delete
    9. Hey Border Ranger thanks for mentioning the Alex Harvey CD, I'm listening to it right now on YouTube - love this stuff lol!! Eyewitness accounts always remind me why I find the mystery fascinating, cheers bud!!!

      Delete
    10. No worries, Jordan. I've been following events as Loch Ness since my first trip there in 1972 (!) and yes, many of the eyewitness accounts are pure gold. I've spoken to too many people at Loch Ness over the years to dismiss them all as crazies. Many local people are reluctant to discuss what they've seen, but when they do, they tend to be very matter of fact about things. They don't like all the hype about a 'monster', but they're quite clear that there's a strange beastie living in the Loch. Getting to the bottom of what exactly it is, of course, is another matter.

      Delete
  12. Where's the underwater sightings tab?
    That's the most powerful of Nessie encounters!

    ReplyDelete
  13. When a man changes the life of himself and his family due to an impactful event you have to belief he witnessed something spectacular.
    Imagine leaving a career as an aeronautical engineer to pursue the Loch Ness monster...think of the risk. Try telling your wife that LOL!!!!! Really.
    Tim MUST have seen through those binoculars the real thing because if he had doubts would he have uprooted his and his families lives?
    This is an intelligent man who had to have seen something extraordinary, remember that he had a pair of binoculars and observed a large creature on the surface of Loch Ness. Tim would not have mistaken his sighting over a boat. He described what he saw through those binoculars and it was enough to embark on a personal crusade.
    When Tim speaks on film and in interviews he is quite intelligent and obviously educated. Also Tim has an honest reputation and is a sane man. Tim saw the Loch Ness monster and it forever changed his life. Very compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Question for all you Nessie enthusiasts here -

    How do you find the locals around the Loch, do they believe in Nessie or just have no interest ? How are your experiences when asking locals around the Drum, Dores, Foyers, Ft Augustus ?
    I asked several locals and most didn't have interest in the Loch, they seemed to not care and not believe anything was/is in the Loch. Two locals I asked were interested and spoke of people they knew well seeing Nessie, both of these people lived near or in Foyers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Local people never mention Nessie...the only time it's ever mentioned is if I mention it first. Tourists often ask my opinion, though why they should care what a sales assistant thinks is beyond me.

      Delete
    2. A mixed bag for me - some believe, some don't. The term "local£ has changed over the decades. A lot of people who live there moved in from other areas and have no connection with the past or its traditions. You may as well ask someone from Glasgow, Newcastle or Manchester for their opinions!

      Delete
    3. I find the locals only tell u if u ask..ive spoke to a few people round the loch over the years and a few have seen unexplained things and some believe in the creatures but a lot don't. I have a good friend in Fort Augustus who has seen it 3 times in his 50 odd years living there. And the place were I stay are huge believers and have also seen things but again they only tslk about it if u ask them. I'm just lookin at booking my next trip as we speak lol . Cheers

      Delete
    4. Most of the locals are probably jaded with all this Loch Ness Monster business and go about their daily lives and accept it for what it is, or is not. Except the tourist, of course.

      Delete
    5. I agree with Riita and Roland....although I've had some interesting chats with locals over the years. I'm at the Loch at this moment and the lady living in the Cottage next door mentioned the other day that her parents had seen Nessie from the end of the garden. She herself has been here all her life and seen nothing though, but as she said, it's not all hoaxes and daftness.

      Delete
    6. @Roy- your next trip idea sounds good. I'm at the Loch at this moment and was thinking about you earlier today as I popped open a can of Tenants :-)

      Delete
    7. Border Ranger..enjoy your tennents lol.. I'm hoping to be up in May..what part of the Loch are you at? I normally stay in Fort augustus

      Delete
    8. Hi Roy. Will be at Dores for this next week and am then relocating to the Fort :-)

      Delete
  15. Sometime in the 1970,s I borrowed from the local library Tim Dinsdale's book 'LOCH NESS MONSTER'. I think I started to read it about 4pm Saturday afternoon and enjoyed it so much I read it all through Saturday night (missed going out for a pint).

    Inspired by this article I have bought a 2nd hand copy from abebooks for £2.42. I hope I find it just as interesting this time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Those of you who have talked to people who have seen it, what do they think the creature is?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Some years ago I knew a man from Scotland, who told me his mother still lived in their house on the banks of Loch Ness. Her kitchen window overlooked the Loch, and she would watch out that window every day while doing the dishes. And she saw the monster several times over the years - it had that long neck and the humps and would swim along and submerge. I recall he said that the residents all know the monster is there, no question of it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That is so amazing. There's definitely something there. I wonder why people are still skeptical of the creatures existence?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've heard that some residents along parts of Lake Champlain in Canada know more about "Champ" than they let on, such as it venturing out to some nearby swampy areas, but they won't give details because they don't want outsiders interfering with the animals...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here is a video taken at Lake Champlain around 2008 of people fishing in a boat. Nothing to see until around 5:16 when they are coming to shore near their cabin where it appears a long green neck is looking out at them from the reeds. This video and enhanced stills were making the rounds on cryptozoological sites then and some people thought it was a creature. I asked the people who posted the video on YouTube and they said it was just a branch...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNGZVPaxr5k&feature=emb_logo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis Jay Hall has good video still of one of the champ monsters,it's 40 feet long and he says it's a reptile,tanystropheus.
      Elizabeth von muggenthaler PhD has recorded echolocation in lake Champlain @ 144,000 hz unlike any echolocation mammels.her interview is on rense.com
      And the discovery channel has her video on YouTube.

      Delete
  21. Katy Elizabeth does research on Champ and posts information on Facebook and YouTube. I think this is relevant to the LNM because they could be similar creatures...
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY2pIeJeO6jppCQ2t4QHj8g/videos

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She originally partnered with Dennis Jay hall..I. Think they were a couple.
      Chsmp also goes on land,or near it.

      Delete