Friday 21 October 2016

A Review of "History's Greatest Hoaxes" Documentary




This Thursday saw the latest instalment of the series "History's Greatest Hoaxes" broadcast on the UK "Yesterday" channel. This time the focus was on the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster, so it's time for another review and discussion about this program's particular take on the centuries old mystery.

Given the title of the series, it was perhaps no surprise that the cast was heavily weighted on the sceptical side as people such as Darren Naish, Dick Raynor, Adrian Shine and Joe Nickell were brought in to give their opinions on the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster. To add grist to the sceptical mill, we had a journalist, psychologist and comedian telling us why the Loch Ness Monster is not to be taken seriously.

On the opposite side was Steve Feltham and myself, making it seven to two against.

Firstly, however, the problem is defining the problem, which in turn drives the perception of those who believe Loch Ness hosts a large creature, yet to be discovered. Whenever the "monster" was conceptualised for viewers, it invariably presented some form of plesiosaur throwback. On this single shot scenario, those who believe in a large creature in Loch Ness were largely portrayed. 

No mention of giant eels, amphibians, exotic fish or other variants. Many theories about how sceptics explain the phenomenon were put forward. However, it seems there is only one "theory" on the other side. I did explain this to the film crew, but it did not survive the proverbial cutting floor.


A DAY OF FILMING

On a personal aside, it was an interesting day at the loch with Bruce Burgess and his film crew.  Bruce was easy to get along with and had plenty of questions about the whole monster thing, and indeed has a general love for mysteries himself. I had brought one of my more sophisticated trap cameras along to demonstrate how monster hunting technology has progressed and automated.

He filmed me talking about the device and setting it up at a location near Inchnacardoch Bay. Actually, it was more a demo than real installation since the area was too exposed to tourists. In fact, finding a real location would have proved too risky for people carrying expensive filming equipment! Some sequences were refilmed and a conversation on the Loch Ness Monster was conducted in the car using an attached GoPro camera. Again, none of that conversation made it into the final edition.

The drive eventually made it to Temple Pier where I met up with Dick Raynor to go out on a cruise boat to discuss the loch and the creature. The conversation was certainly less heated than the ones we have on Internet forums. In fact, it could have done with being a bit more confrontational for TV!


THEORIES

Fortunately, the documentary did not dwell too much on the Surgeon's Photograph. It has had a good run in the panoply of TV documentaries and needs a rest. Most people in the Loch Ness arena accept it is a fake, including myself. 

Paleontologist Darren Naish led the way in attempting to explain away the various Loch Ness Monster photographs and eyewitness reports. He pretty much covered what he said in his recent book, "Hunting Monsters" which I reviewed here. Not wishing to repeat what I said in that article, his explanation of what various famous Nessie photos may or may not represent are opinions which cannot be proven and rather rely on the perceived advantage of being seen to be less incredible than the alternative of a "monster".

Aided by Dick Raynor, one example of this thinking was the 1951 Lachlan Stuart photograph of three humps. Dick commented that though the picture was claimed to have been taken about six in the morning, he said the sun was seen to the west over Urquhart Bay. If it was a morning shot, the sun would be behind Lachlan Stuart. The Stuart photo is the first one below, my test photo is the next one below.





The bright patch to the right of my photo may be the sun, but it is in fact just clouds reflecting the sun, which is out of sight to the left of my position. In other words, the "sun in the west" interpretation is at best, ambiguous. I speak more on that canard here. Whatever you think of this photograph, it should not hang on this. This is a typical example of how sceptics objectify subjective interpretations.

I can add here that I was also filmed going through various photographs and giving my own counter-opinions on them. Sadly, again, that portion did not make the final cut. If it had, viewers would have seen this strange looking head in the Hugh Gray photograph of 1933:





Steve Feltham attempted to cut through the scepticism with his view that one or more giant catfish were in the loch. Catfish are monsters of a sort, though they do not explain everything. I am not even sure they explain Steve's own sighting, since he says it was travelling at over twenty miles per hour!

Curiously, the program made no attempt to record anyone recounting their tale of seeing the creature. I think practically every documentary I have seen has spoken to some eyewitness; indeed, not even Steve's account was broadcast. Instead, we were told how such accounts were just waves, logs or birds seen through the "lens" of expectation.

Oddly, this theory is applied even to witnesses who claim to have seen the creature from a distance of twenty yards! Surely witnesses cannot be that stupid or blind? I covered this strained theory in this article in regard to the view that angler John McLean mistook his claimed 20 foot creature for a 3 foot cormorant at sixty feet! Really?

Perhaps most irritating was the psychologist who pontificated about how the monster believers were desperate for some form of monster wish fulfilment and attention seeking. It's a pity that she seemed to predicate her opinion on a form of monster that many Nessie advocates do not believe in themselves! It doesn't seem to occur to these shrinks that people may actually think there is something to these eyewitness accounts and images that sceptical explanations are found wanting in.

The journalist who went on about commercial interests and priming up for the tourist season was naive and cynical while the comedian offered ... comic relief.

Was I disappointed in the documentary? Not really as it was a program designed to form part of a series dedicated to hoaxes and so would take on a sceptical approach. However, anyone wishing to get a balanced view of the debate would be sadly disappointed.

Perhaps one day, someone will be bold enough to produce a documentary which is neutral or even dares to flip the bias in favour of the other side. Perhaps I should do that myself with the help of others as producers are too much in the thrall of the sceptics!

I believe you may be able to watch the episode online here. Registration required and may no be available worldwide.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com








50 comments:

  1. I found it an entertaining hour hearing other peoples views on the subject.

    I hope you negotiated world wide repeat fees?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No fee. I am not sure whether the sceptics grabbed the Nessie Pound or not.

      Delete
    2. Just to add, you came across very well on camera. Well done.

      Delete
  2. I have never understood this theory that people see it because they are desperate to see it.I know plenty of people including myself who are desperate to see it but never have. What a load of old tosh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At best, it is applicable to sightings which are hard to assess due to long distances, brevity of sightings or other obscuration factors.

      Delete
    2. Hmm I can kinda get the theory to an extent. I think people can arrive at the loch with expectations in mind and those expectations can make them see things that on any other body of water they might not give a second glance to.

      I'm minded of the head and neck sighting someone reported from the bus to Skye on the A82 fairly recently. I remember reading it and to me it was clear that what she was seeing was the starboard marker buoy at Aldourie. I thought that if it were any other bit of water she might recognise it as a buoy pretty quickly but on Loch Ness it becomes something else.

      Delete
    3. Yes, you may be thinking of this:

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/latest-nessie-sighting-august-2011.html

      Object other side of loch, seen for a few seconds, view partly obscured by foliage.

      Delete
  3. Yeah that's the one.

    I'm definitely not criticising her. I believe it's been mistaken several times over the years - for folk coming to the loch for the first time down the A82 from Inverness that buoy is right where you really get your first sight of the loch.

    However, once you see it as a buoy - there's no doubting what it is (if that even makes sense).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, if anyone had stood at the Abriachan layby and spent just a minute watching it unhindered, nobody is going to be fooled.

      Delete
  4. Caught the episode on the UKTV player. I think you came across pretty well, considering the kind of spotlight that was cast. Evidence and theories aside, you're going to have an uphill struggle just from the fact the show's called 'History's Greatest Hoaxes'!

    I wondered if there was a hope they'd get some footage of 'swivel-eyed loons' ranting about plesiosaurs. (Though that's another unfair assumption on my part, considering your remarks about Bruce Burgess) I wonder if that inspired what nearly amounted to a hatchet job on Steve Feltham, after his appearance. Closer to the end of the show I started to wonder how many variations of Dr. Papadopolous (?) saying "they only see what they want to see" they could cram in there. And the comedian - surprised to see it was was Marcus Brigstocke: someone I quite like, compared to too many other 'trendy' comedians these days. Wheeled on to make disparaging comments and then lamely backpedal with 'oh, er, that could've been me'. To be honest I thought he was a wee bit wasted on the show. And again, evidence and theories aside, I don't really know much about Steve Feltham, but it seemed to skate too close to holding him up for ridicule. The only talking head with something good to say was the journalist, with some pretty backhanded compliments!

    That could have been the main controversy regarding the show, I feel. I guess it's not going to shake cryptozoology to it's core, any more than other 'the real truth about nessie' shows. Pity, as you say, they handwaved most of the famous photos without going into much detail of why they were considered fake, let alone giving any room for rebuttal.

    I did get a bit of a chuckle from Darren Naish's new beard, though. That wasn't in the last dinosaur documentary I'd seen him in. Welcome to the crumb-catcher brotherhood, Darren...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Warren.

      You think Steve was nearly "hatcheted"? My impression was that they classed him as somewhere between "sceptic" and "believer" as they panned onto me when the narrator said "but there are some who still believe in a monster" (or words to that effect).

      I have a general dim view of psychologists and this "need" for comedians smacks of the low budget "50 best Sitcoms" etc show formats.

      Delete
    2. Well, maybe 'hatchet job' was the wrong term. The word that first came to mind when they showed Steve with his collection of models, and the psychologist's voiceover talking about people who can't accept the truth and so on, was 'rude'. But that probably makes me sound even more oversensitive!

      I may have misinterpreted the wording of 'still believe in a monster', too. In this context I'd take the term 'monster' as 'unknown animal' rather than the more sensationalist meaning. So I didn't see Steve's wels theory as too much more skeptical than your own, as set out in the show and this blog: there is, or was, some kind of large organism in the loch, that isn't a plesiosaur. But yes, thinking about it, perhaps the scriptwriter and the viewing public wouldn't see 'monster' in the same light.

      Delete
    3. I would class catfish as tending more to the sceptical side. A bit like sturgeons.

      Delete
  5. I still await the exclusive footage at Loch Ness of Adrian Shine eating soup ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have just watched it on UK tv player. Im quite suprised that catfish have popped up all of a sudden. Is there any evidence of catfish bn introduced as far up as loch ness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Large Catfish are the current darlings of the Nessie-is-a-big-fish school of thought.
      Paddy

      Delete
    2. There is no evidence of catfish being introduced to Loch Ness. In fact, I would have expected one to have been caught by now.

      Delete
    3. The waterbull is the grey photo.
      The waterhorse is the long neck photos,like the surgeons photo(imo,is real) and is professor tuckers elasmosaurus.
      Add some unknown giant horse eels and you got a pattial explanation of lochness monsters.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, Well never mind that, that's an old theory Long dead , Give it up. No friking way

      Delete
  7. I was gunna say oh the same old hat but as it was called great hoaxes I will forgive lol food for thought on the catfish yeah I agree what Steve says is possible!! Wid make sense why sightings are down but I was disappointed they didn't give Adrian's or dick Rayners opinion on this as they have so much to say on the mystery ! Would be nice to know if they think huge catfish are or at least were in the loch

    ........ roy

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did someone utter that name Sturgeon ? [ shudder ]

    " in the best interests of Scotland the SNP executive has decided to nationalise The Loch Ness Monster "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sturgeon vs Loch Ness Monster? No contest!

      Delete
    2. Sturgeon... Beating a dead horse. Give it up already

      Delete
  9. Well maybe a dozen or so catfish did get put into loch ness, but would they not breed ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An uncertain answer as I believe the water is too cold for conjugal activities. :)

      Delete
    2. So does that imply for fish only ?

      Delete
  10. I didn't know the Hugh Gray photo was a swan. I can see a dog, a canoeist, and an unknown freshwater creature in it, but that's another matter. Glad we cleared that up in one swift sentence.......
    The programme was a non starter. I don't think it examined one single piece if challenging evidence, and spoke to no eye witnesses, as far as I could ascertain. A court of law it was not. You came across well yourself, but I have to say, I've totally changed my mind on the matter since a glamorous psychologist explained to me how I must be thinking.....
    But on a more sinister note, I think we are in an era where free thought is being discouraged from many quartets. After all, the less one thinks, the more malleable one becomes to the god of media (and maybe even media's favourite government).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sceptics featured are [rodcuts of the Richard Dawkins cookie cutter. There is an element of intellectal eugenics amongst some of them.

      Delete
    2. Do you mean that one is one allowed to exist if one conforms to the current trend of scepticism? If so, yes, I believe that. I never understood why to be open minded was the same to these folk as being a fantasist.

      Delete
  11. A swan in the Hugh Gray photograph is the worst guess in the history of Nessie photographs. Can anyone really think this is a swan ? Thats Dickie Raynor for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was joking, I can't see anything tangible in it except a head. Although the 'head', if it is that, would have to have been relatively static in comparison to the 'body' (given the motion blurring of the body). One would think that an animal that was moving rapidly would be all in blur, but this does not seem to be the case here. The side to side motion is indicative of a fish, and to me it looks big given the ripples (one gets used to ripples and I think it's feasible to use them as a very approximate point of reference, although I might be wrong). I can't see any swan, or any dog, and I'm looking for them.

      Delete
    2. I knew you were joking, the swan theory came from Dickie Raynor and is simply quite laughable.

      Delete
  12. If you look at the swan photo Dickie Raynor presents you can clearly see it has not bn taken at the same distance as Hugh Gray's photograph and Roland's measurements as covered previously are correct and he is right to say the size of a swan does not fit in. Im amazed that anyone can think it does.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello everybody! I'm back. For those of you who remember me, salutations. It's been a long sabbatical since I last made a comment here. I went looking for Bigfoot, UFOs, Mokele-mbembe... nothing there. ..I think. All kidding aside. I have just returned from a trip to Spokane WA. Visiting a good friend, F-4 Phantom jock from the Vietnam era. I am back with a vengeance to defend Nessie's honor. Prepare yourselves for some more outrages and outlandish comments. I am loaded for bear! Bring it on, you Nessie haters!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome back. Sounds like Spokane is near Bigfoot territory?

      Delete
    2. Welcome back John,its always good to hear what you have to say.

      Delete
    3. Haha! I meant outrageous, but there will be outrages also.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Welcome back John your presence has been greatly missed. Whilst looking for Bigfoots etc etc, you didn't happen to spot one of Dick Raynors infamous Swans did you? :-)

      Delete
    6. I dont know about bigfoot but there must be big swans in loch ness,in fact nearly twice the size of a normal swan in Dickie Raynor's measurements. :-)

      Delete
    7. The size of the object in the Gray photo is a non-trivial calculation. In fact, it may not be amenable to calculation. However, the arguments against Dick Raynor's opinion on this photo are more to do with the morphology and texture of the object.

      Delete
    8. I know that, you know that, ....

      Delete
  14. it must resemble at least one of the favoured nessie suspects to be genuine, fish, whale, mammal, deer, plesiosaur ? The Gray photo looks like a rumpled bed, i don't know what ?

    before i forget, the lines in the water to the left of the subject in the surgeon's photo, i had noticed them before but thought they were a sort of wavelet indicating the animal's movement to the right. now it seems they have been mooted as evidence of wires to move the little submarine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? Your starting to drift,John Make up your mind , whale, fish ,mammal,or deer, oh no please not a a plesiosaur!

      Delete
  15. Just seen the documentary on the UKTV app. So, one of their 'experts' was the woman who is wheeled out on Big Brother to comment on how insane the housemates are. From that moment on the whole documentary itself was a hoax. Swans indeed. Though I enjoyed the editor of Skeptical Inquirer's retro comb over. Reminds me of Bobby Charlton and Gregor Fisher in Chewing The Fat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, talking heads and experts rarely combine.

      Delete