A Strange Loch Ness Monster Report?

I found this piece in a newspaper comment section following on from a none too exciting Nessie article. Apparently it occured around 1979 and involved a "James" from the town of Lewes:

Well I for one believe in the monster. Some 30 years ago I moored my boat on the shallow water shelf at Urquart castle about 100 feet or so from the abyss where the shelf ends and plunges 700 feet or so into eternal night. At dusk there was a huge disturbance in the water just off the edge of the shelf and a flock of 50 or so seagulls were sucked down and all vanished all in less than a second. So yes I believe that there is at least a huge predator living in the loch.

Now whether this was the monster is a debateable point, I have never read of such behaviour in all my time reading the literature. Could it have been a whirlpool? Though I am no expert on how water currents interact, this seems unlikely and is not a phenomenon I have read about at Loch Ness.

Could it have been the actions of underwater gases? Again, one would expect such an event to cause an explosion rather than an implosion of water.

A curious incident for which I have no ready explanation. Whoever you are James, tell me more!

More on Greta Finlay

As suspected, current skeptics put Greta Finlay's sighting down to a common roe deer or similar. In my opinion, this is a nonsense theory as too many things have to come together to make it sound believeable.

Let me tell you about my recent deer experience. Not at Loch Ness but in a wood near my place of work where I sometimes go for a lunchtime walk. As I walked I noticed something moving to my left and I stopped to look more closely. It was a deer with two more at about 50 yards away. In fact, it was a deer side on to me but face towards me (in a Finlay like pose). The fact that it took me less than a second to identify it as a deer should come as no surprise. The only surprise was that I did not expect to see any deer near this semi-built up area. As it faced me side on, the ears were very much pricked up in an alert condition (after all, it knew I was there). After some seconds, I moved and they then trotted off in the direction they were pointing.

So this is all pretty much matter of fact, it is very unlikely in those conditions I will mistake a deer for anything else. But suppose there was a legend of a big cat in that forest which is occasionally claimed to have been seen by some but in general has never harmed anyone and is just regarded as creepy. How would that have affected my deer episode?

So, if I had walked the forest with that at the back of my mind, would I have been fooled into thinking the deer was now a big cat? Since I know what a big cat looks like, it is again not very likely. On seeing the deer, one's brain may add the extra processing option of "Big Cat" to the list of possible identifications but the match would fail. The deer is a better fit.

Likewise with Mrs. Finlay at 20 yards from her creature. Various possible contendors would flash through the brain. The "deer" and "nessie" templates would be fitted against what is seen and the winner would be the deer. Obviously, at further distances where visual data becomes less accurate then no identification may be possible and guesswork becomes involved. But at twenty yards - no.

So, to repeat the unusual sequence of events from a deer perspective:

1. The Finlays turn round to see a deer standing in the water 20 yards away.
2. Both fail to recognise it is a deer because they "want" to see the monster.
3. The deer obligingly keeps it ears pinned back to avoid obvious detection.
4. It covers itself in mud to appear black and slimy.
5. It also hides any facial features like eyes, nose and mouth.
6. The appearance of this common deer somehow strikes terror into the witnesses.
7. The deer manages to stay faceward towards the Finlays so they do not see
the giveaway muzzle of a deer (and ears).
8. The deer decides to become a furry submarine and submerges never to appear
again. OR
9. It gave the impression of sinking but was actually making it way to the
shoreline to complete the deception by bolting to the trees.

Now let's talk about logic and the scientific technique as sceptics love to apply. If a theory does not adequately explain the data then it should be discarded. Occam's razor applies - find the simplest explanation that requires the least assumptions. That seems obvious but sceptics persist in this theory rather than the more obvious one from their point of view - the testimony was fabricated. That is, the Finlays were liars.

Now perhaps sceptics just don't like to go around libelling and defaming people as liars. After all, this is a litigious age. It would be "kinder" to say the witness was just deceived by an unusual set of circumstances.

Unfortunately, in this case, I don't think this applies. The deer theory does not fit. That leaves them the following options:

1. The witnesses lied.
2. Someone deceived them in a "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" scenario.
3. It was an unidentified large creature largely as described.
4. Don't know.

Which one shall be picked? if they are true to their logic, option one seems the best choice.

I personally go for option three!

As a final aside, why don't Nessie believers apply Occam's Razor as well and come to the same conclusion that all close up accounts are lies? The reason is because such a theory again requires too many assumptions - despite all the varying characters, it requires that every witness had an abnormal propensity to lie and stick to that lie despite the potential criticism and ridicule they may receive - from their peers and of course sceptics in general.

Classic Sightings - Greta Finlay

Date: August 20th 1952
Time: noon
Location: Aldourie Pier
Witnesses: Mrs. Greta Finlay and son
Type of sighting: Head, neck and back in water

Greta Finlay was an ordinary housewife of Inverness who had an extraordinary experience - one of the closest encounters with the Loch Ness Monster. Here is her sighting in her own words (reproduced in Tim Dinsdale's book "Loch Ness Monster"):

I was sitting outside the caravan when I heard a continual splashing in the water. After several moments passed and realizing this was not the usual wash from a boat I walked round. To my surprise I saw what I believe to be the Loch Ness Monster. My son and I stood looking at this creature in amazement. Although I was terrified, we stood and watched until it submerged, which it did very quickly causing waves to break on the shore. We had an excellent view as it was so close to the shore. Its skin was dark in colour and looked very tough. The neck was long and held erect. The head was about the same width as the neck. There were two projections from it, each with a blob on the end. This was not a pleasant experience. I certainly never want to see the Monster again. My son had drawn several sketches, one of which I enclose.

This can be compared with the account given to Constance Whyte (author of "More than a Legend") just two days after her sighting:

I was so taken up with the strange appearance of the head and neck that I did not examine the rest of the animal at all closely. There were two or three humps and the total length visible would be about 15 feet. The neck was held erect, and where it met the water it enlarged to join a bulky body. The head and neck together were 2—2.5 feet in length, the head alone being about 6 inches long and of about the same width as the neck. What astonished me, apart from the hideous appearance of the head, was that there were two 6-inch-long projections from it, each with a blob on the end. The skin looked black and shiny and reminded me of a snail more than anything.

Mrs. Finlay's experience was first recorded by Constance Whyte in 1957 for her book but Dinsdale interviewed her about eight years later while he was researching his book. Here is the drawing her son Harry sketched for Whyte's book.



The reaction of Mrs Finlay to the sight of the creature was one of being terrified and paralysed with fear. Now the critic who thinks Mrs. Finlay only saw a deer would merely retort that once someone has convinced themselves that they are looking at something unusual then such a reaction will naturally follow. This may well be true but the fact that her son reacted in the same way diminishes that argument. In fact, according to Dinsdale, the lad gave up fishing after this episode.

The episode is placed about half a mile south of Aldourie Castle at the old pier and the creature was about twenty yards out in the water.

This kind of sighting is much loved of debunkers. It gives them a chance to dismiss a dramatic sighting and then turn round and say "If such a close up report can be dismissed, then what about the more distant ones?". To that end, the three sceptics I normally consult (Binns, Burton and Campbell) are unanimous that it was nothing more than a reddish brown deer. They cannot pass up on this opportunity to bolster their case.

In fact, Maurice Burton was so convinced that he also reproduced a drawing in his book of what a young buck with short stumpy horns would look like at that distance. Not surprisingly, the drawing he executed looks exactly like the Finlay drawing but with the eyes, nose and folded back ears. He even tries to explain away the grey, leathery appearance of the creature's skin with reference to the water's glistening effect.

Now finding an image of a deer on Google Images that looked like Burton's was totally fruitless. The best I could find was the two images below.




Note the height of the neck is shorter than that of the Finlay sighting. Also the ears are a bit of a stick out problem. Ears are important to a deer and are constantly rotating around like radar assessing any potential dangers. This would be especially true when they are in a vulnerable environment like water. The other problem is that these deer are standing in the water and not in the act of swimming. A swimming deer looks more like the picture below:



Note the head and neck are much lower in the water and stretched forward in the act of swimming - nothing like the Finlay account. This I presume would force the sceptic to admit that for the deer explanation to have credence then the animal must have been standing in the water. In that case, given the dimension of a typical roe deer, the depth of the water could not have been much more than 3 or 4 feet. Burton takes this up and claims that this is indeed the kind of depth at that place but the facts say differently. Consulting the 1903 bathymetric survey of Loch Ness (maps held at National Library of Scotland), the depth is more likely to be nearer 20 feet as this zoom in of the map shows:


The "22" near the centre is where the pier is drawn and indicates a sounding depth measurement done by the survey. It has a depth of 22 feet just over twenty yards out. In other words, too deep for a deer to stand in.

This is to be expected because there is a pier here and some kind of depth is required for boats to safely approach the mooring point. The "6" (6ft) to either side of the pier is perhaps what Burton intended but a deeper depth is required when deciding where to put a pier.

Apart from this problem, there is the other issue that the creature is reported to have submerged after some seconds. Not one of the three sceptics addresses this point. Deer do not submerge and disappear under the surface (unless dragged under the surface by the Loch Ness Monster). If this was a deer then it would have remained in sight for a long time or clambered onto the shore. Either way, it's identity would have quickly become apparent.

Perhaps the deer was having a heart attack and fell dying into the water? This is one ridiculous interpretation I have heard and again we see how on examining the sceptical case, things begin to fall apart. What Greta Finlay saw terrified her, her son gave up fishing because of it. If it was a deer, this would have become apparent fairly quickly as the deer did its normal thing in water.

As additional information, here is a Google Earth zoom of the pier with the circled area where I believe the witnesses were and the general direction of the beast. No options for a deer to covertly disappear behind an outcrop or dash onto shore.



Again with skepticism, it is the plausible versus the possible. A deer sounds plausible but given an examination of the facts not probable. Some may suggest a strangely floating deer fooling someone 20 yards away whilst having a coronary is still more probable than a large unknown creature in Loch Ness. At least the monster theory does not involve some strange gymnastics to force the deer to fit the data.

So the Loch Ness Monster again submerged back into the waters leaving people perplexed and mystified as to what it is that lies in those dark depths.

The Blighting of Loch Ness

Approval was given by the Highland Council yesterday for both Jacobite Cruises and the Loch Ness Centre developments to go ahead near the Clansman Hotel.

BBC Link

More details are HERE.

Now I hoped that only one at worst would be approved especially considering both sites are only a few hundred yards apart. But in a typical example of local government inefficieny, they pick both. Clearly (to me at least) this means that one of them will eventually go under as there will be too few customers spread over such a short distance. Competition dictates one will win in the end and millions would have been wasted as the other folds. Of course, I may be wrong on that score but we shall see how this pans out in the years ahead. My bet is on the one with the most cash reserves to sustain loss leading products in undercutting the competitor.

One presumes there are two reasons why the Highland Council choose both. The first is to create local jobs in this time of economic uncertainty. But that will be a temporary effect when we consider the other reason and that is increased tourist numbers to the Highlands. Once again, economic duress and high oil prices dictate that more people will currently stay in the UK for their holidays.

That too will be temporary. As people's disposable income recovers and oil prices stabilise, they will be off once again to foreign climes and our two cheek-by-jowl centres will be at each other's throats slashing prices to the bone and laying off staff in a desperate dash for a dwindling customer base.

Political expediency versus economic common sense. When did the two ever meet? Of course, there may be a third reason they were both chosen and that is a lawsuit from the losing party because their plan was just as good as the other one. That won't happen now.

Meanwhile, the third big player in the area, the Nessieland Castle Monster Centre, perhaps fearing that some of that lovely lolly may be slipping from their grasp, have jumped on the development bandwagon and submitted their own plans:

Nessieland Plans

And all this during a time when Nessie sightings are down and Nessie skepticism is high which proves to me that the main reason for all this is to cash in on a temporary increase in visitor numbers. I for one will avoid all three like the plague and support smaller businesses in the area.

Meanwhile, the beautiful shore line of Loch Ness is blighted just that bit more in the pursuit of profit ...

Nessie and Logs

There is no shortage of theories to explain the range of sightings claimed for the loch ness monster. In a series of blogs over time I will explore the various explanations put forward. But first we start not with the Loch Ness Plesiosaur or the Loch Ness Squid but the Loch Ness Log. A very unexciting and uninspiring explanation for sightings but one that is undoutedly true for a certain percentage of sightings. That this was an explanation as old as the Loch Ness Monster media sensation is clear from this 1933 photograph.



The question one needs to ask is what constitutes a sighting? For our purposes, it is a claim that something large and inexplicable was seen by one or more people in the loch (clearly a log will not explain land sightings). Inexplicable implies that the observer thought there was no explanation beyond the normal (waves, known animals, boats, etc) for the event.

However, in the domain of sightings, there are ever decreasing circles in which the inexplicability of the object increases and the gamut of normal events available to explain the event becomes increasingly improbable.

The seminal work on analysis of sightings is Roy Mackal's The Monsters of Loch Ness published in 1976. He stated that there were over 10,000 known sightings reported but not necessarily put down in print. His estimate of sightings making it onto paper was about 3,000 of which he only accepted 258 as suitable for his computer analysis. That did not mean the other ~2500 were all misidentification, but rather he felt they could be accounted for by other known effects. He preferred to take an over cautious approach in his analysis so any doubt about a sighting was given a natural reason. If there is a large creature in Loch Ness (yes there is), then it is clear that sometimes a sighting of it will be indistinguishable from logs, waves and other items. In such cases, one is obliged to go with the natural explanation even though it may not have been the actual cause - we do not know in such cases.

Now how he came by the number 10,000 I am not sure since most of it was only verbal. But we will assume that the quality of those sightings was not much different from the 3,000 that made it onto print. It is that range of 10,000 sightings (or over 270 per annum between 1933 and 1969) that we refer to in accouting for what for the phenomemon may been been.

Now it is clear even to the most ardent Nessie believer that within these thousands of sightings that some people mistook parts of trees for the monster. One may then say "How can anyone be so easily deceived?"

The answer is that normally they should not and I only expect logs to form a small part of sightings for reasons laid out below. Firstly, where do the logs come from? They in the main flow into the loch from the large number of rivers and streams that feed the loch. The tree parts could have come off their source trees naturally or by the action of men. Then they usually drift at the mercy of tides in a slow sedate manner until they are washed up on shore or sink as they slowly absorb water over weeks.

During this time, it is clear that a suitably shaped branch in certain circumstances could deceive someone expectantly looking for a monster. I don't doubt that but normally this should fool no one. A log drifts at quite a slow speed and the exceedingly long time during which the log can be observed should over time dispel any notion of a strange creature. It is in that light that log explanations normally need some other event to reinforce their credibility. They are:

1. The witness did not stay long enough to verify it was a tree.
2. The Loch Ness seiche.
3. Underwater gas eruptions.
4. The log drifts out of sight.

In the first case, if the witness(es) is driving past in a car or for some other reason cannot stay then it is possible that a log could explain what they say. Though one would normally expect an excited witness to stop and stay to watch such an event, it is conceded that some people for some reason will not stop to watch.

In the second case, there is a phenomenon common to certain bodies of water called the seiche in which wind actions on surface water will force the water to one end of the loch upon which it flows back in such a way that a standing wave may form at the surface or above the thermocline (an underwater boundary between colder and warmer water). This has the effect of making a surface object such as a log move against the prevailing wind and give the impression that the object is alive. Note however that this does not preclude the log remaining sight a long time unless reasons 1 and 4 kick in.

Thirdly, in attempting to explain some long necked sightings, it was suggested that eruption of gas from fissures or decaying material could force an underwater log to the surface, stay visible for some seconds and then sink again with no time to verify the true nature of the object. This we consider an event so rare as to be a very specialised explanation.

Finally, if the log simply drifts out of sight into a bay then again there may be no time to identify the tree but note that this is dependent on the witness' position and how quickly it drifts out of sight (which will not be quick). Note that the loch's long dimensions and lack of big bays make this witness-log-bay configuration uncommon. The deatils of each individual sighting should determine if such a theory is possible.

In summary, tree debris may sometimes look like unknown beasts but by and large will not fool people unless some other event intervenes such as the object not being in sight long enough for verification. It is expected that claimed sightings of monsters which endure for a long time are open to such an explanation but those that last less than minutes require further analysis.

Lake District Monsters

So Bownessie is the new Nessie - at least for the time being! What the recently taken picture shows is a matter of debate. By Loch Ness Monster standards, it is a pretty lumpy looking beast with four tightly clumped humps (unless the foremost hump is the lowered head/neck?).

This event got me looking in my archives and behold, I found this account of a "floating island" in Derwentwater just eight miles up the road. This is taken from The Scotsman of 27th September 1842 and goes thusly:

The Floating Island which according to “Otley's Descriptive Guide,” has emerged to the surface of Derwentwater twelve times in the last forty years, made its appearance on Thursday week in two places, abou forty yards apart, and appears to be daily increasing its dimensions. It has become a source of profit to the boatmen, as numbers of the lake visitors are anxious to avail themselves of the opportunity of having ocular demonstration of so wonderful an appearance.-- Carlisle Patriot.

This apparition appeared to be a massive vegetable mat going by other accounts - but what about Bownessie? Vegetable mats tend not to whizz around the place and submerge as quickly as they appeared, so the jury is out on the mat theory. For the time being, we await the next development.

PS

Vegetable mats do not occur at Loch Ness - the peaty composition of the loch does not allow it.

Dinsdale, JARIC and Carter

I would like to spend some time in this post and others doing something unconventional and against the trend - defend Tim Dinsdale and his milestone 1960 film of the Loch Ness Monster. The trend is to demystify and debunk, and this blog is all about swimming against the current trend.

The "avant garde" thinking is that Dinsdale filmed a boat. Well, it is not quite new thinking but a Richard Carter some years back put together a theory that Dinsdale failed to distinguish between a common outboard engine boat and an unidentified creature of large proportions. Another researcher, Adrian Shine, published his own analysis which I hope to look at in a later posting.

Richard Carter was an active Nessie hunter in the late 1990s. He believed in the monster's existence (he also didn't accept the Spurling Hoax theory about the Wilson photo) but was prepared to literally push the boat out on the Dinsdale film being misinterpreted.

His analysis of the film and the 1965 JARIC report that examined it can be found at this link and it is this critique that I wish to critique.

You may wish to read through Richard Carter's analysis or read my hopefully accurate summary which is in three points:

1. The JARIC Report's estimate of a speed of 10mph for the object is overestimated because they did not take the winding time of the cine camera into account.

2. The appearance of the object submerging is a trick of the light.

3. A filming of a suitable boat under similar conditions can look like the object in the film and hence is the most likely candidate.

The focus of this article is point one - that JARIC overestimated the speed of the object in the film. Let me explain why it is so important that the speed of the object must be less than 10mph to allow a boat explanation to be considered.

The engine in typical use in a 1960s boat would have been a Seagull 5hp outboard engine which was capable of a maximum hull speed of 5.4 knots or just under 7mph. Richard Carter understood this and knew a 10mph object in the film would cast doubt upon an typical outboard engine boat being a candidate.

How could one suggest that one of these common boats that regularly flitted across the loch could be the "monster" in the film yet be seen to be going at a speed 43% above its top speed? Clearly there was a contradiction here which had to be dealt with.

Richard Carter had a brainwave. He knew that Tim Dinsdale's cine camera had to be stopped and rewound at certain intervals as the mechanical motor winding the film through the camera ran down. He estimated this happened every twenty seconds and a rewind took twelve seconds. He suggested that JARIC had not taken this rewind time into account and hence the object in the film would apparently cover more distance as a 12 second gap was instantly leapt over in the appropriate frames. He calculated this would bring the real speed of the object down to 6.5mph - acceptable for the boat theory.

He further suggested that because Dinsdale gave instructions not to project the film but only examine frames that these time jumps would not have been apparent the JARIC experts.

So, is this all done and dusted? Can we all go home now and bin the film? Not quite yet.

First we need to ascertain some facts about the film. The first is how long it lasted. In Dinsdale's book "Loch Ness Monster" he gives a full account of his sightings and various items of information about the filming process. Richard Carter takes the book to task at this point because it apparently contradictory in its account of how long the film lasted. In one place it says 50ft of film was exposed, in another 20ft to 30ft and in another place it is said that the monster was filmed for four minutes.

I will address these apparent discrepancies at the end of this post but first we need to know something about the technical specification of the cine camera that was used. The camera used was a Bolex Cine H-16 which was capable of running 50ft or 100ft of film at one time before reloading was required. The camera could run at various frame rates but in this instance it was running at 24fps (frames per second).

From this we can infer the maximum time of possible footage that could be shot. For 50ft it would be 77 seconds and for 100ft it would be twice as long at 155 seconds.

Referring to the JARIC report, it is clear from their analysis that he had loaded 50 feet of film. I say this because they numbered the frames from 1 onwards up to 1440 and if we divide this by 24fps we get 60 seconds. Since Tim had stated that he was nearly out of film when he drove to the loch to get a closer shot, then that would be consistent with 50ft and not 100ft (Note the report mentions frames 700 to 1700 but these are rounded numbers are given as an assumption to demonstrate an arithmetical procedure).

Now if Richard Carter's analysis is correct, Tim Dinsdale would have had to stop and rewind his camera at least twice. Once at 20 seconds in the film and again at 40 seconds into the film. A third rewind is possible at 60 seconds but no further film would have been shot as he stopped to drive on.

If we break that down into frame numbers, we get possible jumps in the film at frames 480 (24fps x 20s) and 960 (24fps x 40s). Note this relies on two assumptions. Firstly that the cine camera had been fully wound and ready for action that morning. Given the account by Tim of his meticulous preparation that day, I think this is a safe assumption. Secondly that Tim rewound the film only when he had to (i.e. keep filming Nessie!).

Does the film jump at these frames? Without a copy of the complete film, I cannot say. If anyone who has a full copy of the Dinsdale film would oblige then I could take this further. But we press on.

The first problem with the Richard Carter analysis is that in his book, Tim Dinsdale says he only rewound the camera once. The quote is here:

".. firing long steady bursts of film like a machine gunner, stopping between to wind the clockwork motor."

How could he rewind once in a 60s shoot when a rewind is required every 20s? The answer is because a rewind was not required every 20 seconds. Thanks to the power of the Internet, I trawled around for a technical description of the Bolex H-16. I found one at this link and this is what it says about rewind times:

"Fully wound, the motor will drive about 18 feet of film through the camera (about 28 seconds at 24fps)."

So it seems that 28 seconds and not 20 seconds was the expected run time for a model from that period and that would agree with Dinsdale's testimony. Why did Richard Carter's Bolex not perform the same way? It may have been a later modified model but for sure not all Bolex cameras are the same.

Therefore, only one rewind would have been required at around frame 672 (24fps x 28s). However, there is a slight discrepancy here because two runs of shooting lasting 28 seconds each at 24fps gives us 1344 frames which is 95 frames short of the 1440 frames JARIC stated (or roughly 4 seconds missing). Did Tim Dinsdale managed to run his rewinds longer? I would think so given that the document quoted is not dogmatic on the precise upper limit. That puts the film break at frame number 720.

The next problem with Richard Carter's analysis follows on from this conclusion. The sequence of frames which JARIC used to calculate the speed of the creature falls outside the range of where a 30s rewind would occur (frame 720). In their analysis of the speed as the monster swam away from Tim, they state they analysed frames 1 to 384 to derive a speed of 10mph. In their second analysis as the monster was moving parallel to the opposite shore, they used frames 816 to 1440.

In other words, the jump in the film would have been missed and irrelevant to the analysis. The calculated speed of 10mph stands.

As it happens, even if two or more jumps did happen in the film, it was probably not relevant. The first jump in a 20s run occurs at frame 480, but by then JARIC had already analysed frames 1 to 384 and calculated a speed of 10mph. Furthermore, I would find it incredible that the professionals at JARIC had failed to take pauses to rewind into account. The Bolex H-16 was a well known and popular model and they must have known about this. I doubt they would have made such a schoolboy error in their calculations.

As a side note here, Richard Carter speaks of the JARIC report on the difficulty of measuring the speed of an object moving away from the observer at an elevation:

"This after they tell you the difficulty of near horizontal photography, especially the measurements in depth view."

Richard uses this to suggest that the 10mph estimate was therefore not reliable. However, he omits to quote another passage from the report which says this:

Note: Difficulties of Y measure are mentioned at para.5. and during this sequence almost all of the measure is Y measure. However, since the object is travelling on a fixed bearing relative to the shore, the point of intersection on the shore becomes a fixed reference point and measures become more reliable. Moreover, the speed has been calculated from observations on 5 separate frames and the given speed is the sensibly LOWEST speed from these observations.


Note, 10mph is estimated at the lower range of their estimates - the creature coulsd have been travelling faster than this. So, the estimate is reliable and the techniques of the JARIC team are further vindicated by the fact that they estimated the speed of the boat Tim had sent out later as a control footage as 6.5mph which agreed well with Dinsdale's own estimate of 7mph as he paced the boat in his car.

But what about the apparent discrepancies of 50ft, 20-30ft and 4 minutes in the book's account? These are not difficult to explain. The 50ft relates to the entire length of film shot including the test boat footage. The 20-30ft is the estimate of how much monster footage was shot though my own estimate suggests the number is closer to 38 feet but it is no more than an estimate which Tim Dinsdale clearly did not see the point in pinpointing accurately for a general audience of readers.

As for the four minutes, Richard Carter wonders what Tim Dinsdale may have hidden or cut out if the footage lasted so long but in the same breath he says that four minutes would have been impossible to film (which I agree with). One can't suggest two contradictory things in the same paragraph.

But then again, the film lasted one minute but the book says he shot four minutes of film - which is clearly wrong. What I suggest is that the entire filming process lasted four minutes but that does not include actual footage time. I speculate that the missing three minutes came during the rewinding of the motor previously discussed. Without the full footage to examine, I cannot be certain, but it is a reasonable hypothesis. Why would Tim Dinsdale take three minutes to rewind the cine camera when it should only take a tenth of that time? In the excitement and tension of such an event, it is easier to take longer over things. Perhaps he had finger trouble, a temporary mechanical problem arose or he was distracted by something. It is hard to pinpoint an exact explanation but the film footage ought to show up a three minute gap in this case.

The analysis seems clear to me. The estimated speed of 10mph calculated by JARIC stands and this is a problem if you think the object in the film is a common boat.

Let me finally say something about Dinsdale's reputation in the eyes of others. All say, despite his alleged cock up on the filming front, he was not to blame for any deception, was as fooled as anyone was but nevertheless he rendered an invaluable service to monster hunting. To the last sentiment I would agree.

However, I do detect an undercurrent of criticism which needs to be answered. I already mentioned the 4 minute criticism and the suggestion of something being hid - that is not true.

Another person who thinks the object is a boat claims that Tim Dinsdale could not have driven down to the shore in the few minutes he claimed. This is said because they tried it and took them ten minutes. If you read Dinsdale's account, he seems to have driven like a maniac, blaring his horn and then running for his life to the shore. I would say that the person probably did not drive or run in the manner Tim did (he may have been arrested for dangerous driving!). What obstacles lay in one's way in 1960 as opposed to now is also an open question.

Finally, Tim Dinsdale's widow, Wendy, seems to come in for a hard time when she refuses to allow her husband's film to be examined or put on public websites. If those websites were to use the film to prove her husband wrong then her actions do not surprise me. That doesn't mean she thinks it is a fake, only because the recipients of the film do. I would also point out that Tim Dinsdale's son, Simon, publicly stated the film was the monster only a few months ago. If he thought his father had shot a boat, I doubt he would have come forward with those statements.

So much for the speed of the creature in the film. Richard Carter appears to have dropped out of the Loch Ness scene, but there are others objections raised against the film today which I hope to cover in later posts.