The rise of scepticism has brought with it a desire to find more natural explanations for eyewitness claims to large creatures in lochs and lakes around the world. We are familiar with the older theories regarding boat wakes, seiches, vegetable mats, birds and other forms of misinterpreted phenomena, but not much new has hoved over the sceptical horizon recently.
So, it was with some interest that I noted a comment left by Loch Ness researcher, Dick Raynor, on this blog a couple of years back:
I am just beginning a new avenue of amateur investigation involving
infrasound and
I am sure that Ted and Tim would have been years ahead of me had they
still been with us, as both of them (and I also) had experiences
consistent with its effects.
This work, if successful, will in no
way claim or prove that there are no unknown large animals in Loch
Ness, it will only add to the argument that their existence is not
necessary to account for the wide variations in observations and data
obtained so far. If I see and film a plesiosaur from one of my boat
tours tomorrow I will happily admit "Yup, there are plesiosaurs there
too."
You can find Dick's thoughts on this matter at his website. In summary, the theory draws on previous work by Vic Tandy which suggested that inaudible sound at around a frequency of 19Hz triggers various physiological effects such as fear, blurred vision, shivering and dizziness. The blurred vision is alleged to be due to the human eyeball resonating at this frequency. Tandy's own personal experience made him think a grey spirit was entering at his peripheral vision but vanished when he turned to look at it.
Dick Raynor thinks this is applicable to some aspects of the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon. The infrasound waves are theorised to be generated by the culvert pipes below the road which then affect human observers near them. These pipes are used to run hillside water off into the loch and the photo below is of one such culvert at Loch Ness which I took recently.
However, how exactly this is to be applied to the Loch Ness Monster is not made clear on his website. A look around for Dick's other comments does not elaborate much more on the neurophysiological mechanisms involved or the proposed alterations in perception. One comment here has him actually applying the infrasound mechanism to Bigfoot as well!
Adding to what Rangoon says, the same naturally occuring infrasound
could produce the perception of bigfoot in addition to the "bad"
feelings. Witness is unaware of cause but senses both effects and the
brain then turns one of them into a cause.
However, one assumes culverts do not run past Bigfoot sites. On another forum, he says:
Could it be that Science has added a new category of 'answer' that
relies on modern physics, including infrasound-generated psychological /
perception disturbances ...
Could produce, could it be? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Let's look at issues with this theory.
SEMI-SCIENCE
Now Dick said (albeit two years ago) that this was a work in progress and it is just as well he said that because what we have just now is not science but at best incomplete science. He has proposed a theory, albeit thin on the human perception side, but having more to say on the matter of the physics of resonating culverts.
The main problem is immediately obvious to those with experience of the scientific method. There is no evidence that this theory has been tested. It is over two years now since Dick outlined his theory on his website, but nothing more has been added. What do we need to see to progress this?
First, is there any evidence of infrasound emissions near the culverts? Has Dick gone to some culverts with measuring equipment in an attempt to measure the presence of sound waves in the proposed frequency range? If nothing has been detected, clearly the theory is already dead in the water.
Secondly, the intensity of any proposed waves also need to be measured. Herein lies a deficiency with the theory as it is not stated at what decibel level the proposed perception-altering changes kick in. Culverts may emit at 18Hz, but may be too weak to have any effect on humans.
Thirdly, a control test needs to be done at a site well away from culverts on the loch side. This is to establish whether any theoretical infrasound presence can be statistically linked to the culverts rather than another potential cause. If infrasound were to be detected nowhere near culverts, it is unlikely to have anything to do with them.
Have any of these tests been done? If not, it is incomplete science, it is semi-science. Many a theory has been proposed over the centuries of scientific enquiry, they may have been totally plausible and mathematical, but in many instances they turned out to be wrong due to an unwarranted assumption, loose handling of the data or a missing piece in the equations.
On the other hand, it is of course entirely possible all this has been done, it just has not been published yet. In that light, we await the possibility of unrevealed research for further critique.
On the other hand, it is of course entirely possible all this has been done, it just has not been published yet. In that light, we await the possibility of unrevealed research for further critique.
PEER CRITICISM
The other aspect to all of this is whether the initial and original theory is as worthy of acceptance as it is made out? In that light, I took a step back from what is being proposed regarding the Loch Ness Monster and sought out the opinions of others on Vic Tandy's theory of infrasound and paranormal phenomena. It did not take long to find a dissenting opinion.
This objection can be found in a paper authored by Jason Braithwaite and Maurice Townsend in October 2006 entitled "Good Vibrations: The case for a specific effect of infrasound in instances of anomalous experience has yet to be empirically demonstrated" which is a long winded way of saying "we don't think anything has been proven here".
I see that Dr. Jason Braithwaite lectures in Cognitive Science and Brain Science at Birmingham University and his academic profile is here. You can obtain their article here. His view in the paper is that the infrasound phenomenon has not been properly quantified, there is no baseline data and the neurological side is inadequately stated.
That does not mean that infrasound effects on human perception have been proven false, it just means they are not proven to an adequate level of scientific enquiry.
CONCLUSION
There is no proof that infrasound can perceptually affect observers at Loch Ness or anywhere else. No measurements at this time confirming their presence at culverts are forthcoming and there is no mechanism adequately explaining how resonating pipes lead to people seeing plesiosaurs. Apart from these objections, it's a great theory. :)
We await further scientific revelations from Dick Raynor.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Mind you, it is entirely possible Nessie herself is emitting an infrasonic growl thus inducing monster hallucinations on the hapless witness. :)
ReplyDeleteAfter all, apparently Bigfoots can do it: http://www.dzopa.com/?p=29805
Infra sonic sound is also attributed to some of the phenomenon assosciated with ghost sightings...
ReplyDeleteYes, that was the context for Tandy's original theory. The Braithwaite paper above calls his techniques into question.
DeleteSome animals do communicate with infra sound as well. This Wiki page also mentions Vic Tandy...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound
ReplyDeleteSomeone with sufficient patience (not me!) could look through weather reports and see if sightings were correlated with strong winds blowing parallel to the roads. It would rather go against the view that sightings are common in dead calm conditions.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, an experience like Tandy's - a "figure" in peripheral vision which faded when looked at directly - does not sound like any reported sighting of Nessie.
Well, indeed. The other point was why should only the peripheral vision be affected in a resonating eyeball? One may well expect the whole eye to be affected resulting in overall blurred vision.
DeleteSeems a little unfair to critique research that hasn't even been published yet, just based on comments left on web forums.
ReplyDeleteI don't know when Dick will publish his final paper, if ever. It's over two years now. In the meantime, he is publishing comments as if he has already confirmed in practise the initial theory.
DeleteI (and anyone else) is perfectly entitled to critique these early stages of his work. What is your problem with that?
I have heard of infrasound being connected to ghost sightings - it's a theory covered in The Natural History of Ghosts - and at Loch Ness it must be of interest if only regarding the weird sensations recorded by Crowley. I'll be at the loch in a week's time for a few days and Dick has offered to help us do an infrasound experiment of our own. Doubt we'll prove anything spectacular, but who knows...
ReplyDeleteIndeed, but even the ghost connection is not a proven theory. It seems things are picking up since I posted this article (only a coincidence of course).
DeleteDon't forget to calibrate your instruments against a known 19Hz source, else your results will be useless.
Thanks for the tip!
ReplyDelete