Common Knowledge about the Loch Ness Monster: Television, Videos, and

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

...Description...... more. less.

Underwaterphotographyofalargeflipperwithsimultaneoussonarde- tectionin1972. Table2showshowthedocumentarieshavedealtwiththisevidence,allof whichwasavailabletoalltheprogramslistedinTable1withtwoexceptions: I (1972)couldnotincludetheflipper,and I 3 V couldnotincludethestriking sonarresultsof1980 440substantialcontactsduringonesummer(LN&MP, 1983) 4orthethreestrongcontactsrecordedduringamajorsonarsweepof theloch(OperationDeepScan)in1987(Bauer,1987b;Dash,1988). TheDinsdalefilmhasthreesalientsequences:(1)initially,thecurvingpath ofalargehump,movingawayandtotheright;(2)then,anarrowingofthe wakeasthehumpsubmerges,withmomentaryappearanceofasmallersec- ondhump;(3)finally,alargewakemovingright-to-leftwithnothingvisible abovethewaterline.InTable2, TD1 reports1/3,2/3orfull( )reproduction ofthesethreesegmentsofthefilm. TD2 denoteswhetherornotameaningful portionofenlargedfilmwasshown 3 .ThefilmwasauthenticatedbyBritain 9s JointAirReconnaissanceIntelligenceCentre(JARIC)in1965(James,n.d.) andbyseverallatergroupsusingcomputertechniques 4 ; TDC1 reports whetherornotsuchauthenticationwasmentioned.Thehump,althoughlarge, lookssmallwhenthe16-mmfilmisshownfullframe; TDC2 reportswhether ornottheaccompanyingcommentarypointedoutthatthehumpisofsubstan- tialsize(about3feethighby5 36feetwideatthewater-line).Dinsdale filmedaboatforcomparisonwiththehump,andthewakesofthetwoare distinctlydifferent( TDC3 ).Itisworthnotingthatthehumpsubmergedwhile continuingtothrowupawake( TDC4 ),thatasecondhumpappearedbriefly ( TDC5 )andthatinthethirdsegmentofthefilm,thereareperiodicsplashes ratherlikeoar-strokestothesideofthewake( TDC6 ). Sonarhasfrequentlypickeduplargeunderwatermovingobjects(observed bynofewerthan20separateexpeditionssince1954)( S1 ).Itisworthnoting ( SC1 )thatthisconstitutesarespectabledegreeofreproducibility:atleasthalf ofthesonarventurestodatehavereportedsuchcontacts.Itisalsosignificant ( SC2 )thatsonarcontactshavebeenrecordedbyavarietyofinstruments, bothfixedandmoving,withvarioustypesofbeamsandfrequencies,sothat itisquiteunlikelythatthecontactswereallgeneratedbyartefactsasopposed tolargemovingunderwaterobjects. Therewere two flipperphotographsobtainedin1972( UW1 )andsimulta- neouslythesonarrecordedverylargetargets( UW2 ).Thegeneralshapesof theflippersarevisibleontheoriginalfilmtransparencies( UWC1 ).The somewhatdifferentflippershapeswereobtainedaboutaminuteapart,consis- tentwithmotion( UWC2 ) 4perhapsasingleappendageatdifferentangles,or CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster457 TABLE2 ExtenttowhichPositiveObjectiveEvidenceabouttheLochNessMonster hasbeenPresentedinFilmsandTelevision Note:ShadedareainTable2indicatesitemsnotevenmentioned.Fractionsshowhowmuchor littleofthematerialwasshown. Indicatessatisfactorycoverage; indicatesbarelymentioned, notfullyexplicated; indicatescoverageiserroneousorseriouslymisleading. a Someresultsavailablebutnotthesignificantonesoftheearly1980s. b Notavailableatthetimethefilmwasmade. c Reversedfromoriginalasthoughmovingfromlefttoright. d Shotsofthecontrolboatareshown asthoughthiswerethemonster. e 8 8DoNessiesexist? 9 9 4 yes; ? 4 possibly; ? 4 whoknows?; ?- 4 probablynot;- 4 de- finitelynot. TD1 4 Howmuch ofthefilmisshown?; TD2 4 Was magnified sectionshown?; TDC1 4 itsauthenticityissupportedbyexpertexamination(James,n.d.)orbycomputer-en- hancement; TDC2 4 thehumpisof substantialsize (3feethighby5½feetwide); TDC3 4 a boat wasfilmedas control ;hump 9swakeis unlikeboat;TDC4 4 hump submerges whilecon- tinuingtothrowupawake; TDC5 4 a secondhump isbrieflyvisible; TDC6 4 thereare peri- odicsplashes attheside,similartooarstrokes; S1 4 Frequentsuccess (about20occasions withpositivesonarcontactsince1954); SC1 4 Goodreproducibility :significantechoesre- cordedbyabout50%ofexpeditions; SC2 4 Varietyofsonarinstrumentsused,fixedandmov- ing,soechoesareunlikelytobeartefacts; UW1 4 Were both flippersshown?; UW2 4 Was chartofsimultaneoussonarechoesshown?; UWC1 4 Flipper shapeisvisible onoriginalframe offilm;UWC2 4 twoshotslessthanaminuteapart consistentwithmotion;UWC3 4 mas- sivesonarechoes comparedtothosefromfish; UWC4 4 re-touched?(sometimesallegedsince 1984); 4 NOT; 4 whoknows?; 4 DEFINITELY). 458Bauer afrontandahindlimb,orthelimbsoftwoseparatecreatures,sincethesonar chartindicatedthatthereweretwolargeobjectspresent.Thesonarchart showsmanyechoesfromfishinstraightpathsaswellasthemassive,dense echoesfromlargerobjects( UWC3 ),consistentwithfishfleeingalargepreda- tor.Therehavebeenpersistentclaimsthatpublishedflipperphotoshavebeen retouched( UWC4 ). TheshadedportionsofTable2showwhichofthesesignificantevidential detailswereomittedintheseveraldocumentaries.Overall,abouttwothirdsof theTableisshaded:morelikelythannot,inotherwords,viewersofthesepro- gramswerenotgiventheinformationneededtoarriveataninformedopinion. ThemostdamagingomissionsarethatallthreesegmentsofDinsdale 9sfilm, andbothunderwaterflipperphotos,wererarelyshown(inonly2and3ofthe 17programs,respectively).Evenwhenagivenpointwasdiscussedinsuffi- cientdetail,however,viewerscouldnotbeassuredthattheinformationwas reliable:about20%ofthetimeitwassignificantlyincorrect( ). Only3programs 4 VIII , XIII , XIV 4displayedmostoftheobjectiveevi- dence.However,itshouldbeaddedthat I wasproducedprimarilyforchil- dren,isveryaccurateaboutwhatitdoesshow,andremainswellworth viewingbyaudiencesofanyagefromprimaryschoolup 5 . XIII ,ontheother hand,counterbalancesitsgoodcoveragebygetting3importantpointsquite wrong.Iwouldrecommendonly VIII and XIV . XIV isaNOVAproduction, anditsupportsthegoodreputationthoseprogramsenjoy. VIII isacommer- cialvideowhosescriptwaspreparedbyTonyHarmsworth,residentatLoch Nessfortwodecadesandfounderofwhatwasformorethanadecadean excellentLochNessMonsterExhibitionattheDrumnadrochitHotel. BothoftherecommendedvideosareneutralastowhetherNessiesexist. Neitherconfirmedbelieversnordisbelieversshouldbecontentwiththepro- gramsthatlargelyprojecttheirownviewpoint.Thepredominantlybelieving ones( III , IV , VI )omitonaveragemorethan70%ofthestrongestobjective evidence.Thedisbelievingones( VII , XI , XII , XV , XVII )areevenworse; thoughtheytypicallypurporttotakea 8 8scientific 9 9stance,theyallowedview- erstobeawareofonlyabout15%ofthestrongestobjective 4inotherwords scientific 4evidenceofsonar,film,andphotographycoupledwithsonar.In program X ,afeaturedscientistexplainsthateyewitnesstestimonyispersonal, onecanneverbesureofitsvalidity,scienceneedsreproducibledata.Atthis pointitwouldhavebeennaturaltomentionthatsonargetssignificantlyre- producibleresults;butthatisnotdone,andthevideofailseventomention 80%oftheobjectivedata. ReportingtheEvidenceinGeneral Noteveryonewillagreewithmyselectionofwhatisthestrongestobjective evidence.Perhapssomeothermodeofassessingthesedocumentarieswould ratethemlessunfavorablythaninTable2? CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster459 Inpointoffact,mostoftheprogramscontainnumerousfactualinaccura- cies.Someofthesemaybeonquiteminorpoints,andneednotinthemselves preventviewersfromreachingareasonableopinion.Nevertheless,inaccura- ciesthatcouldhavebeenpreventedbymoderatelysoundresearchundercut thecredibilityofthewholeproduction,irrespectivewhetheroneisagnostic,a believer,oradisbeliever.Carelessresearchisillustratedbythefollowing: AssertionsthatLochNessis 8 8honeycombedwithcrevicesandcaves 9 9 ( VI , X ),whichmaybeconnectedtootherslochsortothesea( III , X ); thatthelochis900feetdeep( II , V , VII , XVII ),orthatnooneknows howdeepitis( IV );thatLochMorarlies 8 8justaboveLochNess 9 9( IV ) 4 inrealityitisroughly40milestothewestand20milestothesouth. Allowingtogouncontradictedclearerrorsbypeopleinterviewedfor theprogram.Thusin X ,madein1994,theproprietoroftheDrumna- drochitHotelandownerofthe 8 8Official 9 9LochNessMonsterExhibi- tionservedhimselfshamelesslybyassertingthatsciencewasnow takinganinterestonlybecausetheExhibitionhadbeenthrowingpeople andmoneyatthequestfor20years.InfacttheExhibitionhadbeen foundedonlyadecadeearlier,andthefundsgivenforresearchwerea verysmallpartoftheExhibition 9sprofits. Statingthatseveralcoelacanthswerecaughtinthe1930s( XI ) 4buton- lythefirstwasrecognizedin1938,thesecondturnedupin1952. DescribingSt.Columba 9sencounterwiththeMonsterasatLochNess ( I , X , XVII )whenactuallyitwasatthe River Ness;statingthatthe swimmeronthatoccasionwasnotmerelyattackedbutactually 8 8de- voured 9 9bytheMonster( III ). ConfusingdetailsoftheMackaysightinginMay1933fromthewestern shoreoftheloch,whichinstigatedthesubsequentfuror,withthereport bytheSpicersacoupleofmonthslater,ofseeingsomethinglargeand monstrouscrossingtheroadalongtheeasternshore( XVI ). ShowingtheLee-Adamsphoto(Figure1)( II , III , V , XIII )asthoughit werepertinent,eventhoughitwastakenbyaphotographerwhoseidentity isnotknownwithanycertainty,hasnocontexttoindicatethatitwaseven takenatLochNess,andisalmostuniversallyregardedasspurious. GivingApril1asthedate( IV )fortheSurgeon 9sphoto(Figure2),said tohavebeentakenby 8 8RobertWilson 9 9( XVII )(insteadofR.Kenneth Wilson,asheisdescribedeverywhereelse). XII claimsitwasapproved byNASA,perhapsagarbledversionofthereport(Witchell,1974:69) thatithadbeencomputer-enhancedattheJetPropulsionLaboratory. Discussingsearchesmadeduringthe1930swhileshowingvehiclesobvi- ouslyoflatervintage,inpointoffacttheLochNessInvestigationofthe 1960s( III ). JohnCobb 9sspeedboatisshownexploding,butinaleft-to-rightrun ratherthanrighttoleftasinallotherversions( III ). 460Bauer DescribingTimDinsdaleasafull-timemonsterhunterresidentatLoch Ness( II )andthatitwastheproceedsfromhisfilmthatgavehimthe meanstohuntmonstersfull-time( X ).Inhisbooks,Dinsdaledescribed thefreelanceworkhecarriedoninordertomakepossiblehisexpedi- tionsofseveralweeksormonthstoLochNess,onceortwiceayear. ShowingthethirdsegmentoftheDinsdalefilmleft-to-rightinsteadof righttoleft( IV ).EmphasizingshotsoftheboatDinsdalehadfilmedas Fig.2.TheSurgeon 9sphoto. Fig.1.Publishedinthe DailyMail (25August1934)andinthe IllustratedLondonNews (1September1934,185:315),withnophotographiccreditineithercase.Photographer isnamedasDr.JamesLee(Witchell,1974:51)orasF.C.Adams(Mackal,1976:99). CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster461 acontrol asthoughitwerethepurportedNessiehump ( VI , XIII ), whichwouldgiveviewersan entirely wrongimpression(Figure3). SayingthatitwasProfessorMackalwhocarriedouttheunder- waterphotography( VIII );thatRobertRinesnowhasdoubtsaboutthe validityofhisunderwaterphotos( XIII );thathisoriginalfilmfrom1972 waslost( VIII ). ShowingRinesinconnectionwiththeISCANsonararrayof1983, whichhehadneitherdesignednordeployed( VI ).Infact,thearraywas Fig.3.Nessiehump(upper)andcontrolboat(lower)fromDinsdalefilm.Reproducedbykind permissionofWendyDinsdale. 462Bauer theworkofpeoplewhocriticizedRines 9swork(Razdan&Kielar, 1984 385),makingerrorsintheprocess(Rinesetal.,1985). FrankSearle 9sphotosfromtheearly1970swerepubliclyexposedas fakesbyWitchell(1974:184ff.).Neverthelesstheyareshownwithout commentin VII ;in III theyareevendescribedasnotretouchedandit isclaimedthattheoriginalnegativeshadbeenexaminedbythefinest scientificlabsinEuropeandAmerica. Noonetakesseriouslythephotosproducedbystagemagicianandpsy- chicTonyShiel,yettheyareshownwithoutcommentinseveralpro- grams( V , VII , XIII , XVII ).Anotherredherringisthesnake-like protrusionfromthewaterreproducedin VI . Talkingaboutthe 8 8body-neckandflipperof1975 9 9,whenthelatter wasobtainedin1972( V ).Describingthesecondflipper,themorecom- monlyshownone(Figure4),asa 8 8tail 9 9( V ).Callingthebody-neckphoto (Figure5)aheadwithantenna( VII );inotherwords,confusingitwith the 8 8gargoyle 9 9photo(Figure6),whichinanotherinstancewassaidto havebeenenhancedtoaflipperform( XI ).Inanothercase,the 8 8two- bodyshot 9 9(Figure7)wassaidtohavebeenenhancedtotheflippershape ( XVII ). TakingseriouslytheclaimbyRogerParker( V )tohavetrackedonsonar for1½hoursananimallargerthan43feetwitha20-foot-longbabyinits shadow,latermakingcontactwithtwosmallercreatures.Thestrengthof Fig.4.Mostcommonlyreproducedflipperfrom1972underwaterphotography.Reproducedby kindpermissionofRobertRines. CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster463 sonarechoesonthattypeofdevicecannotbetakenasameasureof length 4letalonesoaccurateameasure;viewersshouldhavebeentold that. Hyperbolemaynotbeasseriousasfactualerror,butitcansignificantly mislead,forexample: Fig.5.1975 8 8Body-neck 9 9photo.ReproducedbykindpermissionofRobertRines. 464Bauer Describingtheloch 9speat-stainedwateras 8 8blackassoot 9 9( X ).How thencouldtherebyanyunderwaterphotographyatall? Callingthemysteryariddlethathashauntedhumanimaginationfor centuries(sic)andstimulatedargumentbetweenbelieversandskeptics forthatlengthoftime( X );orthatforcenturies(sic)storiesofstrange creaturesinriversandlochshavestirredfears(sic)andimaginationof residentsandscientists(sic)alike( XIII ). InterpretingtheEvidence Carelessfactualresearchundercutsoverallcredibility,eveniferrorson minormattersneednotpreventviewersoftheseprogramsfromreachingrea- sonablyinformedviewsonthemainquestion,whetherornotNessiescould bereal.Errorsofinterpretationoftheevidence,however,arelikelytohavea moreseriousandinsidiousimpactthanminorerrorsofperipheralfact. Ingeneral,thesefilmsgivereasonablyaccurateaccountsofthequestto identifytheLochNessMonster.Mostofthemincludeinformativeandattrac- tivescenicshots.Typicallytheypresentagoodselectionofeyewitnesses,but thereareoccasionallapses;in XVI ,forinstance,awomanandherdaughter recountintoogreatdetailtheirterror(sic)attheloudsplashingnoisesthey heard,eventhoughtheywerenotonthewaterandnotevenveryclosetothe noise. ItisoftenallegedthatNessieswereinventedtodrumuptouristbusiness. Thisishintedatinseveralvideoswhichmentionthatthefussin1933ensued Fig.6.1975 8 8Gargoyle 9 9photo.ReproducedbykindpermissionofRobertRines. CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster465 afterasightingreportedbyAldieMackayandherhusband,whohadalocal hotel.Itisthereforeaseriousomission,animpliciterrorofinterpretation,not tomentionletterspublishedinlocalpapersaboutsightingsin1930,whichare documentedevidencethatNessieswerebeingseenwellbefore1933. Acommonquestionis, 8 8Howcouldlargeanimalspossiblyexistinthis landlockedbodyofwaterwhendecadesofintensivesearcheshavebeenfruit- less? 9 9Onepartoftheansweristhattherehavebeennodecadesofintensive searches.TherewastheMountainsurveyofafewweeksbyacoupleofdoz- enpaidwatchersin1936.Thelongestandmostorganizedsearchwasbyvol- unteersenrolledintheLochNessInvestigation(LNI),forseveralweeksof eachyearforabout10yearsbeginningintheearly1960s.TheLochNess& MorarProjectmonitoreddeepwaterforseveralmonthsintheearly1980s. Mostothersearcheshavebeenconductedbyindividualsforvaryinglengths oftime,perhapsintensivefromanindividual 9spointofviewbutcertainlynot fromtheloch 9spointofview.TimDinsdalewasthemostpersistentNessie seeker.Hemadeabout40expeditions,butwasfullyawarethathewasseek- ingtheluckychanceandnotmakingacomprehensivesearch;hewondered sometimeswhetherheshouldhavecontinuedwatchingfromlandinsteadof gamblingonacloseencounteronthewater.Noneofthefilmsorvideosis clearonthispoint,andseveralofthemmisleadbytalkingofintensive searchessincethe1930sbyteamafterteamofdedicatedhuntersmounting 24-hourvigilswithcameras( XV )orof25yearsofsearcheswithsubmarines Fig.7.1972 8 8Two-body 9 9photo.ReproducedbykindpermissionofRobertRines. 466Bauer ( X ).Insimilarvein,itisseriouslymisleadingtodescribeOperationDeepScan in1987ashavingboatsspreadoverthewholeloch( XV ), 8 8theentirelength andbreadthofloch 9 9( XVI ):actuallythesweepcoveredonlyabouttwothirds oftheloch( VIII ;Bauer,1987b;Dash,1988). Severalofthefilms( IX , XI , XII , XIII , XV , XVII )showfineexamples ofhowdeceptivewavesandwakesonthewatercanbe; XV alsoillustrates mirageeffectsnicely.Ontheotherhand,in X thereisshownatourist 9svideo recordedinAugust1992thatissaidtolooklikeananimalrollingoverand over,withunnamedexpertssuggestingitwas25 330feetlong.Azoologist testifiestoneverhavingseenanythinglikeit,thatitmaywellbealargecrea- ture.SkepticSteuartCampbelldismissesitasaninterferencepatternbetween twowakes.ButpeoplewithsomeexperienceofactuallywatchingatLoch Nessshouldhavenodifficultyidentifyingthisasthesinglesegmentofaboat wakethathaspersistedwhiletheothersegmentshavedieddown,ashappens notinfrequentlyoncalmwaterwherethewakesrollfarandendurealong time.Viewedapproximatelyside-ontothewake-section 9smotion,theshadow oftherollingwavecanlookremarkablylikesomethingsolid.AsAdrian Shinepointedoutwhenthistouristvideowasshownontelevision(ITNin Britain,CNNintheUnitedStates),theimportantclueliesinthe repetitive motion:wheneveronwatersomethingrepeatsseveraltimes,mostlikelyitis somesortofwavephenomenon.In XVI ,aneyewitnessdescribesa1998 sightingthatwascapturedonvideo,butthereproducedvideoisclearlya wake,presumablyfromaboat,andnotthesolidobjectdescribedbythewit- ness.Inthesameprogram,atouristvideoratherclearlyshowingasealis treatedasthoughthereweredoubtaboutit.In VI thereisyetanotherinstance ofshowinganobviouswakewhiledescribingitasmysterious:avideofilmed atLakeOkanaganisreproducedwithexcitedvoicesinthebackgroundand thevideo 9scommentaryasks, 8 8Isitawave?adog?themonster? 9 9Again,in XV altogethertoomuchismadeofanindistinctfilmedwakethatlooksmore likebirdsthananythingelse. Inseveralofthevideos( IX , XV , XVII ),people 4sometimesdescribedas professionalpsychologists 4deliverthemselvesofgeneralitiesabouttheunre- liabilityofeyewitnesstestimony,buttheirremarkslackspecificapplicationto thespecialconditionsatLochNessanddonotaddresstherangeofexperi- enceandlocalknowledgerepresentedbythecumulationofeyewitnesses. ThatcumulationissoweightythatevensuchdisbelieversasAdrianShineare convincedthatpeoplehaveseeninLochNesssomethinglargeandpowerful thattheycouldnotrecognize.Manysupposedsightingshave,nodoubt,been misperceptionsofwavesandwakesandbirdsandsealsandsoforth,butnot suchinstances,quitenumerous,asthoseinvolvingmultiplewitnesses,some- timesfromseveraldifferentplacesaroundtheloch.Moreover,inoneofthe programs( XV ),studentsfromAberdeenUniversityconductanexperiment andfindthatpeoplewere not takeninbyalogbeingpulledthroughthe water.Inseveralofthevideos,IanCameronmakesthepoint,basedonhis CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster467 policeman 9sapproach,thathistestimonywascorroboratedbyacompanionas wellasbysevenentirelyindependentwitnessesontheoppositeshoreofthe loch.Surelyadiscussioniscalledfor,howtoaccommodatebothofthese opposingprofessionalviewpoints,thepoliceman 9sorlawyer 9sandthepsycho- logist 9s,eachofwhich 4takenseparately 4seemsratherconvincing;butnone oftheseprogramsofferssuchaneededdiscussion.Onepointthatdisbelievers couldmakeinsuchadebate 4butfailtodoinanyoftheseprograms 4isthat onecanwatchequallyconvincingwitnessesasinthesevideostell,incount- lesstelevisionprograms,aboutsuchsightingsoftheMothman 6 ,oraboutab- ductionsbyaliens,channelingofspiritsfromelsewhere,andsoforth. Givenallthedoubtsthatsurroundeyewitnesstestimony 4doubtsthatmany peoplearefamiliarwithevenwhentheseprogramsdonotemphasizethem 4 itisthenseriouslymisleadingtoclaim( X , XV )thateyewitnesstestimonyis thestrongestevidencefortheexistenceofNessies.AsIhaveargued(Bauer, 2002),films,sonar,andsimultaneousphotographyandsonarmustbetaken intoaccount.Onecandisputetheauthenticityorthesignificanceofthose items,buttheycannotbedismissedaslessevidentialthanpersonaltestimo- nies.Whenaninterviewedscientistproclaimseyewitnesstestimonyasbeing ofnoscientificvalue( X ),itwouldseemappropriatetopresenthimforcom- mentwiththeseobjectivepiecesofdatathatareavailableinrecordedform forcontinuedexaminationandanalysis. Insimilarvein,itismisleadingtocalltheSurgeon 9sphoto,nomatterthatit isthebestknown, 8 8themostfamousunrefutedproof 9 9( X )or 8 8definitiveproof 9 9 ( XV )or 8 8previouslyincontrovertibleevidence 9 9( XIII )ofNessie 9sexistence. Thatmisdirectionthengivesfartoomuchweighttothesignificanceofthe purportedrevelationthatthisphotowasahoax,particularlywhenitiscoupled withtheallegation 4constructedoutofwholecloth 4thattheSurgeonhimself wassoashamedofhispartinthehoaxthathefledtoPapua,NewGuinea anddiedinexileinAustralia( X ).SurgeonR.KennethWilsondidemigrateto Australia,buthehaddonesodecadesbeforeBoydandMartinintheearly 1990spublicizedallegationsofthehoax. ProponentsofNessiesliketocitetheauthenticationbyJARICoftheDins- dalefilm.Disbelieversmissedtheopportunityinseveralofthesevideosto pointoutthatJARIChadalsoclaimedtoseesomethingofsizabledimen- sion 45to9feetlong 4momentarilybreakthesurfaceintheRaynorfilmof 1967( VIII , XIII ),whichactuallyshowsaflockofbirds,asRaynorhimself haspubliclystatedsincetheearly1980s.Moreoverin XVI ,aformerJARIC expertidentifiesasalogwhatisratherclearlyawave.Thecomputerexperts engagedfortheDiscoveryprogram IX alsofailtoinspireconfidencewhen theyfindintheDinsdalefilma 8 8shadow 9 9inthewaterbehindthehumpthat isratherobviousalreadyinthe unenhanced still(Figure8).Itisnotashadow butratheradivisioninthehump 9swake,andprobablyindicatesthatthere wasasmallerobjectbreakingthewaterinfrontofthehumpbuthiddenbyit atthisangleoffilming.ExperienceofactualwatchingatLochNessteaches 468Bauer thatonerarelyseesanythingbelowthesurfaceofthewater,notevena 8 8shadow 9 9ofit;onlywhenonestandsrightattheshore,andinveryshallow water,canoneseeanythingofobjectsbelowthesurface. Manyoftheprogramsfeaturevariousexperts,andsomeofthemareal- lowedtogetawaywithincompetenttestimony,forexample,thezoologist whothoughtawavetobeananimal( X ).Inothercases,expertsventurecon- flictingopinions.Theclearimplication,whichfailstobebroughtoutinthese programs,isthatonecannotacceptbothopinions.Forexample,in XV the relevantexpertfromtheBritishMuseumsaysthatthebonyplatesofastur- geonaresodistinctivethatitcouldnotbemistakenforanythingelse;yetthe sameprogramconcludesthatagiantsturgeon,assuggestedbyaLochNess expert,istheclosestanyonehascometoidentifyingtheMonster! Fig.8.ShadowbehindthehumpintheDinsdalefilm,supposedlyrevealedbycomputeren- hancement,isvisibleintheoriginalunenhancedfilmandisactuallyundisturbedwater betweentwowakearms.a)SlidesuppliedbyTimDinsdale,reproducedbykindpermis- sionofWendyDinsdale.b)Contrastincreased,givingthesameeffectasthereported computerenhancement. CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster469 Ratherclearerrorsofinterpretationifnotoffactinclude: ThatNessiescouldhavebeentrappedinLochNessintheprimordialpast, somehowsurvivingtheIceAgethere( IV ). ThattheSpicers 9descriptionoftheirlandsightinggavetheMonsterthe identityofaplesiosaur( XII ).Theirdescriptionwasnotplesiosaur-like. ThattheGrayphoto(Figure9)is 8 8littlemorethanawakeorwave 9 9 ( XVI ),orthatitshowsaLabradordog( VIII , XI ),sometimesdescribed aswithastickinitsmouthorrollinginshallowwater.Itisalsoamis- interpretationifnoterroroffactthatGraymayhavefabricatedhispho- totocapitalizeonprizesbeingofferedforphotos( XIII );actually,he hadlefttheundevelopedfilminhiscameraforweeks(Whyte,1957: 2 34). ThatitwastheSurgeon 9sphoto 4publishedinApril1934 4thatsetoff theinternationalfuror( X )thathadactuallybegunsixmonthsearlier. Bycontrast, XV asserts(alsoincorrectly)thattheSurgeon 9sphotowas obtainedunderintensepubliccompetitionforphotos. Thatthecaptureofalivecoelacanthin1952primedthepublictotake theLochNessMonsterseriouslyagain( XIII ).Actually,thefirstcoela- canthhadbeenidentifiedin1938,andtheinterestintheLochNess MonsterwasrevivedafterWorldWarIIbyConstanceWhyte 9sbook publishedin1957. ThattheDinsdalefilmhasbeensuccessfullyduplicatedbyfilminga boat( XV ).Onlyonestillfromthatattemptisshown.Itdoesnotlook Fig.9.TheGrayphotograph,taken12November1933byHughGrayandpublishedinvarious newspapersamonthlater.ThisauthorfollowsWhyte(1957),Witchell(1974)andothers inregardingitasauthentic. 470Bauer likeDinsdale 9shump,notleastinbeingmotionlesswithoutawake,and provesatbestonlythatunfocusedphotographsofadistantobjectmay beindistinctanddifficulttoidentify. ThattheLochNessInvestigationofthe1960swasaventurebyagenera- tionofprotesters,tovindicatehumannatureoveracademicarrogance, intentasmuchtodiscreditestablishedscienceastosolveazoological mystery( XIII ).TheLNIhadbeenorganizedbyDavidJames,something ofanEstablishmentfigureasaMemberofParliament,whosefamilyhad anestateontheIsleofMullandwhowasaheroofoneofthefamed escapesofprisonersofwarfromGermancustody.TheBoardofDirectors oftheLNIincludedseveralotherrespectableEstablishmentfigures. ThatphotographerCharlesWyckoffhadpronouncedthepublishedflip- perphotographsasretouched( VIII )inastatementsignedin1989 ( XVII ).ButWyckoff(1984)hadearlieralsowrittenthat 8 8theAcademy ofAppliedSciencehasneverproducedorreleasedasingle 8JPLcom- puterenhancedphotograph 9withtheslightestbitof 8retouching 9or change 9 9.AspointedoutinBauer(2002),thisdiscrepancyisonlyan apparentone. XIV reproduces(1)theoriginaltransparencieswhich showthemedial 8 8spine 9 9andadjoiningportionsoftheflippers;(2)a computerenhancementinwhichtheseportionsoftheflipperareseento formaconnectedsurfacewithclearproximaledgesbutonlyindistinct distalones;and(3)asupposedlyretouchedversionsimilartocommonly publishedones,inwhichthedistaledgesoftheflipperhavebeenmade sharperandmoredistinct.Wyckoffattestedtheauthenticityof(2), whichisinitselfquitesufficienttomakethecasethatlargeflippers werefilmed.Forthosewithaccesstotheoriginaltransparenciesthem- selves,(1)isalreadyconvincing,fortheoutlinesoftheflippersaread- equatelyvisibleinthemevenbeforecomputerenhancement(Gillespie, 1980;Wyckoff,1984). Thecredibilityof XVII astoWyckoff 9sopinionsaboutretouchingis hardlyenhancedwhenmentionofhimisaccompaniedbyshotsnotof himbutofSirPeterScott,notmerelyoncebutintwodistinctsettings. Noristheprogram 9scredibilityenhancedwhenitpresentsaspossibly genuineseveralphotosthatnooneelsetakesseriouslyandthatshow somethinglikeanossifiedeeloranautomobilebumper. Thatthe1975underwaterbody-neckphotowasregardedevenbythemost skepticalasindicatingalargeanimalintheloch( IV ).Thisthengivesex- cessiveweighttocritiquesofthose1975photos,forexample,that all of them 4obtainedatintervalsofhours 4areofthebottomoftheloch( XIII ) justbecauseoneofthemis.Inpointoffact,of6photosobtainedin1975, 3resembleeyewitnessdescriptionsofNessies,twoareenigmaticbut couldbesointerpreted,andonlyoneclearlyshowsasandybottom. Thatthe1975underwater 8 8gargoyle 9 9photo(Figure6)bearsan 8 8un- cannyresemblance 9 9toarottingtreestump( XI ). CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster471 ProgramThemes AnyprogramabouttheLochNessMonster 4oraboutanyothersuch anomalisticsubject 4willseektotakeadvantageofthewidespreadpublicin- terestinunusual,mysteriousmatters.Butproducerstypicallylookforsome otherspecialangleaswell,andsometimesintheattempttobedifferentor special,theymayalsomislead. Insomecases,itisperhapsmoreamatterofover-reachingthanofoutright deception. IV ,forexample,culminateswithfilmofastringoflargebubbles thattheproductionteamallegedlyobservedinthesameplacewherestrange soundshadalsobeenrecorded;theknowledgeableNessiebuffcanonlyre- spond, 8 8Sowhat?! 9 9Similarly, X featurestheLochNessSubmarineasthough itwereaseriousNessie-huntingtool,saidtobethelatestin25yearsof searchesbysubmarine.Inreality,submarineshavebeenverylittleused,and theLochNessSubmarinewasintendedprimarilytomakemoneybyoffering underwatertripstotourists.Nevertheless, X reportsratherbreathlesslythat strangeunderwatersoundswerepickedup,perhapssealsbutpossiblyNessies; andevenmoreportentouslyreportsthatsuddendustcloudswereobservedon thebottomasthoughsomethinglargehadscurriedaway.Againperhapsbest describedasover-reachingistheclaimmadein IX 4andnowhereelse 4that theSurgeon 9sphotowascomputer-enhancedinthe1990storevealalittle whiteobjectinfront,asourceofripples,indicatingthatmaybetheneckwas beingtowed 4ormaybeitwasjustablemishonthenegative. However,severaloftheprograms( I , II , V , VI , VIII , X , XI )doputthein- vestigationofmysteriesintoreasonablecontext:thatmysteriesarenotonly interestingbutthattheattempttoelucidatethemoftenleadstothegainingof genuinelynewknowledge.Someofthedocumentariesfocusspecificallyon mainstreamscienceatLochNess:scienceislookingforbiologicalevidence behindthelegend( XII );theDeepScansonarsurveywas 8 8sweepingtheLoch safeforscience 9 9( XIII ); 8 8sciencediscoversLochNess 9 9accordingto IX , studyingthefoodchainandusingtheloch 9spristinepopulationsofnematode wormsasabaselineforstudyingpollutioninotherpartsoftheglobe. Anumberoftheprogramsaretiedtospecificexpeditions. IV wasfilmed whenboththeAcademyofAppliedScienceandtheNationalGeographic Societywereatwork(andtheproducersdescribethemselvesasathirdexpe- dition). VII featuresa 8 8newexpeditionthismonth 9 9followingtheprevious year 9sOperationDeepScan. X ,asmentionedabove,misleadsbyfeaturingthe LochNessSubmarineasaserioussearchforNessies. XIV reportshonestly anexpeditionbyRinesandWyckoff(theAcademyofAppliedScience). XV interweavestheLochNessquestwithacontemporaneousexpeditionatLake SeljordinSweden,and XVII featuresthoseSwedishhuntersinajauntat LochNess,describedmisleadinglyasthelargestexpeditionforyearswiththe mostadvancedoptical-avoidancesonareverused,whichcouldsupposedly distinguishfixedinanimateobjectsfromlivingones. III isinaclassbyitself 472Bauer formisleadingviewers,deliberatelyandunscrupulously,byfeaturinganexpe- ditionthatisplainlyfaked.PurportedlyunderwateratLochNess,theexpedi- tionviasubmarineissupposedlyusingahydrophonicallytriggeredsonar plate(whateverthatmaybe)totrackthemonsterwithoutdisturbingitwith strobelights.ButthevenueisquiteobviouslyelsewherethanLochNess,for thewaterisclearandthereareprolificgrowthsofkelpandweeds.Thevideo culminateswithaglimpseofalargebodysaidtobe5timesthesizeofthe submarine(afincanbeglimpsedmomentarilythatlookslikeawhale 9s). Viewersaretoldthatthisisthe 8 8firstknownmotionpictureofitskind 9 9,that soundswerealsopickedup,andthatthereiseveryreasontobelievethatthe answertothemysteryisnearathand.Viewersarefurthermisledbybeing toldthat(unspecified!)testshaveshownthatmonsterwakesaredistinctlydif- ferentfromsealwakes.Remarkably,this2-hourfilmmanagestobeboringas wellasmisleading.Whocouldtheintendedaudiencehavebeen?Tobetreated toshotsofbearschasingsalmon,areminderthatbearshibernate,andthecom- mentthatNessies,whichalsoeatsalmon,thereforeperhapsalsohibernate? Scientists,thefilmclaims,arelookingintothisconnection! Alsodeceptiveinanapparentlydeliberatefashionis XVII ,whichculmi- natesinfeignedexcitementoverthediscovery,strangelyjustwhenthedocu- mentarywasbeingfilmed,oftwohugeeels.NotinLochNess,butonthe shore,convenientlyatoneofthelargestlay-bys(parkingareas)alongthe mainroad.Viewersaretreatedtoanautopsythatrevealsmackerelinthe stomachofoneoftheeels,provingitcamefromthesea.Alocalexpertex- plainsthatthisshowsthatseacreaturesmaysometimesbefoundonthe shoresofLochNess!Inthesameprogram,Web-camsarementionedthatper- mitpeopleanywhereontheInternettokeepwatchoverthewatersofLoch Ness.Aclaimedmonsterphototakenfromacomputerscreeninthisfashion isshown,togetherwithanelaboratere-enactmentwithboatsandsighting toolstodemonstratethattheWeb-camphotowaslikelyofaboat.Ifthepro- gramwerebeinghonest,itwouldmakeplainthattheviewprovidedbythe Web-camsdeliversviatheInternetsosmallanimagethatoneisfortunateto beabletomakeoutaboatatall,letalonebeabletodistinguishonefroma monstrousneckorhump.Fartoomuchismadeinthesameprogramofthe assertionbyacruise-boatcaptain(RichardMcDonaldof CruiseLochNess )to havefounddeepcavernsinwhichlargesonarcontactsaresometimesmade 4 cavernsthatthefeaturedexpeditioncouldnotevenfinddespiteits 8 8most advancedoptical-avoidancesonareverused 9 9(above). Oneprogram( X )hadascentralthemetherevelationthattheSurgeon 9s photowasahoax 7 .Another( XVI ),shownontheTravelChannel,was 4 appropriatelyfortheintendedaudience 4slantedtowardprospectivetourists. WhytheInadequacies? Onlytwo( VIII , XIV )ofthesixteenprogramsdirectedatanadultaudience ( II to XVII )getmostthingsright,presentrespectively90%and65%ofthe CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster473 strongestobjectiveevidencefortheexistenceofNessies,andprojectaneutral opinionastowhethertheyexist.Whyaretheotherprogramssounsatisfac- tory,bothinabsolutetermsandincomparisontothesetwo? XIV wasaNOVAprogram,andNOVAproductionsaimperhapsuniquely tomakesoundandinstructivedocumentaries,undertheauspicesofnon-com- mercialtelevisionandfunding.Thescriptfor VIII waswrittenbyalong-time insidertothesubject,TonyHarmsworth,whoseinitiallynaiveandstrongbe- liefhasbeentemperedbyexperienceandtheinfluenceofastronglyskeptical colleague,AdrianShine.Suchausefulcombinationisunlikelytobesought bycommercialproducerswhoseaimistoattractawideaudiencebyoffering entertainment,ifneedbeatthecostofpedagogicalaccuracy.Asajournalist andcolumnistrecentlyobserved(Samuelson,2001:xxi 3xxii): 8 8Therehas beenablurringbetweennewsandentertainment 9 9owingtotheinfluenceof television 8 ; 8 8thewaywe,asasociety,increasinglyorganizeandpresentinfor- mationleads 4systematicallyandalmostpredictably 4tomisinformation 9 9. Thereisa 8 8commondistortionofreality,whichisnot 4however 4typically theresultofdeliberatelies 9 9. Theidealprogramaboutananomalisticsubjectwouldpresentthestrongest evidenceandthebestargumentsagainstthatstrongestevidence.AstoLoch NessMonsters,onemightshowexamplesofeyewitnesstestimony,doubtful photos,andthelikeandhavecompetentpeoplearguebothsides.Hoaxes needtobementioned,butitalsoneedstobepointedoutthathoaxesdon 9t disprovethecentralclaim;considerthattherewerehundredsofhoaxesabout anthraxintheUnitedStatesin2001,butthatdoesnotgainsaythatseveral lettersactuallywerelacedwithdangerouslyinfectiveanthrax.Butsuchanap- proachmakesconsiderableintellectualdemandsontheaudience;thetypical producer 9sambitiontoattractaswideanaudienceaspossibleentailsbycon- trastacertainamountofdumbingdown. Asecondfactorthatcolludesagainstanidealdocumentaryonananomalis- ticsubjectisthelackoftimeorresources,orboth,thataretypicallyavail- able.Ihavebeenconsultedseveraltimesbymediapeople 8 8researching 9 9TV programsorpreparingtalkshows.Icontinuetobetakenabackatthelackof backgroundknowledgetheyacquirebeforegettingintouchwithme,andby theirfailurethereaftertofollowupmysuggestionsintendedtohelpthem understandwhatitisallabout.Ihavehadonmyansweringmachinemes- sagesfromreportersaskingmetocallthemback;butwhenIdid,atthelatest thefollowingday,thiswasoftenlaterthanthedeadlineforfilingtheirstory. Forsomespecialprograms,ofcourse,thereportersmayhavealongerlead time:IoncehadacallfromCNNforaprogramtheyplannedtobroadcast fivedayslater. Evenwhenprogramsareintheworksformonths,thesupportingresearch mayberathercursory.Iwasconsultedatsomelengthbytelephoneinconnec- tionwithtwoofthe1-hourdocumentariesaboutNessies.Theresearchersknew ofmybook(Bauer,1986),buttheyhadnotgonesofarastoactuallylookintoit 474Bauer veryfar,letalonedeeply.Itwasalsoclearfromtheirenquiriesthatnothing Icouldsaywouldalterwhathadalreadybeendecidedabouttheapproachand toneoftheprogram.Oneproducerconfessedlaterthattheywouldhaveadopted adifferentapproach,hadtheyknownbeforetheybeganfilmingwhattheyhad learnedbythetimetheprogramwasfinished.Theinterpretivecart,inother words,hadbeeninharnesswellbeforethesubstantivehorse. GaryMangiacopra,whoseknowledgeaboutseaserpentsandmonstersisas comprehensiveasanyone 9s,hasgivenmepermissiontoquotehisownexperi- ence(Mangiacopra,2001): RegardingtelevisionshowsonNessie.Frankly,myopinionafterdealingwithsixtv companiesoverthepast20yearsisratherlow.Theytendtobegoingmorefor thecontroversytoamusetheirtvviewers,andfrankly,most ... morebluntly,allof thecompanyresearchershavenoideaofreallywhatisgoingonorinterestinthe topic.Itisanotherassignmenttobedonewithintheirbudgetandtime.Ineffect,I calledit,McDonaldland.Massproduceshowsonaregularbasis,andtheirqualitysuf- fers.MyappearanceonHISTORYMYSTERIESlastMarchIthoughtwasanearcom- edy.Ihadascripttheywantedmetocite,whichIdid,didalotofresearchandwork forthem,loanedthemmyoriginalslidesfortheirshow ... andIgotnofinancialgains formyefforts!(Igotavideocopyoftheshowforallofmyeffortsforthem!) ShorterpiecesaboutLochNessMonstersthatoneseesontelevisionnews whensomethingishappeningatLochNess,orthatformsmallpartsofpro- gramsdealingwithsomecollectionofsubjects,are 4predictably 4onthe wholelesssatisfactoryeventhanthefuller-lengthdocumentaries.Forexam- ple,sixtosevenminutesaboutNessiesinthehalf-hourDiscoveryChannel program ThoseIncredibleAnimals 4LochNessQuest 9 featuredmainlythe 1987DeepScansonarsweep;itstatesthatsomeinconclusivefilmshavebeen obtained,showsthe1936Irvinefootagethatmostknowledgeablepeoplere- gardasspurious,butfailsaltogethertomentiontheDinsdalefilm. Ihavenottriedinthisessaytoassessthenumerous 4orperhapsinnumer- able 4othersnippetsaboutNessiesthatappearquitefrequentlyontelevision. Idohavevideorecordingsofacoupleofdozentelevisionpiecesinwhich Nessiesaregivenafewsound-orvideo-bites.Asonemightexpect,itismore orlessamatterofchancewhethertheinformationprovidedissoundorun- sound.Yetthesetelevisionappearances,shortbutmorefrequentthanthefull documentaries,arelikelytobequiteinfluentialandtoreinforcethegenerally misguidedstateofpublicknowledgeaboutthesubject. Acertainamountoffilefootageseemstobeborrowedbetweenprograms. Eyewitnesstestimoniesinseveraloftheprogramsseemtobeidenticalinsub- stanceandlocusoftheinterview.Muchofthe10-minutesegmentaboutNes- siesin Bigfoot:TheMysteriousMonster, producedbyRobertGuenettefor SchickSunClassicPictures,istakenfromtheWolperproduction, II . Isuspectthatanalysisoftelevisioncoverageofotheranomalisticsubjects wouldrevealsimilarcharacteristics:asmallproportionofrelativelyinformed, sound,andneutral-tonedpiecesamidmuchthatismisleading,shallow,and CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster475 wrongonpointsoffact.Thelesson,whichwillnotbenewstoanomalists,is thatthepublicislittleexposedtosoundinformationaboutanomaliesandun- orthodoxies. Notes 1 Two( I , III )wereinitiallyproducedascommercialfilmsandanother ( VIII )asacommercialvideo. 2 LochNess, filmedin1994andshownin1996,starringTedDansonand JoelyRichardson. 3 Kodakhadmagnifiedsomeportionsofthe16-mmfilmforDinsdale.BBC televisiontransferredthe16-mmfilmonto35-mm,andfurthermagnified someportionsofit.TheversionDinsdaletypicallyshowedinhislecturesin- cludedamagnifiedportionofthethirdsegmentthatmadeclearertheoar-like splashesaccompanyingthewake. 4 BytheJetPropulsionLaboratoryandfor IX , XIII ,and XIV . 5 Thefilmmakesthecommendable,pedagogicallyappropriatepointsthat monstersstemmedfromhumanimaginationlongagobutthatsomestoriesof monstersmayhavesubstance.Nothingstimulateslikemysteries.Knowledge comesfromevidence,imagination,investigation. 6 See,forexample, 8 8SearchingfortheMothman 9 9,shownoncable-televi- sionchannelFXon23January2002. 7 Thatrevelationisnotbelievedbyanumberofpeople,includingtheau- thorofthisessay;seeBauer(2002). 8 Oneratherobviousindicationthatnewsisdesignedtoentertainisthede- terminationofnewsanchorstosmileattheiraudiencenomatterwhatde- pressingwordstheyreadouttous.ForseveralyearsIhaveobservedinsome wondermenttheattemptbysuchpeopleasDanRathertosmileatthesame timeastheyaretalking,whichisimpossibleandresultsinavarietyofawk- wardorincongruousfacialexpressions. 9 Itapediton22January1994.ItisnarratedbyLorettaSwift,copyright Westinghouse1991. Acknowledgments Iamgratefultoinnumerablefriendsandacquaintanceswhoalertedmeto broadcastsoftheseprograms.MikeSwordswasexceptionallyhelpfulbypro- vidingtapesofseveralofthem. References Bauer,H.H.(1982).TheLochNessMonster:Publicperceptionandtheevidence. Cryptozoology, 1, 40 345. Bauer,H.H.(1986). TheEnigmaofLochNess:MakingSenseofaMystery. Urbana,IL:Univer- sityofIllinoisPress. 476Bauer Bauer,H.H.(1987a).Societyandscientificanomalies:CommonknowledgeabouttheLochNess Monster. JournalofScientificExploration,1, 51 374. Bauer,H.H.(1987b).OperationDeepscan. Nessletter,84 (insertdated16October). Bauer,H.H.(1988).PublicperceptionoftheLochNessMonster. ScottishNaturalist,100thyear, 69 393. Bauer,H.H.(2002).ThecasefortheLochNess 8 8Monster 9 9:Thescientificevidence. Journalof ScientificExploration,16, 225 3246. Dash,M.(1988).OperationDeepscan. ForteanTimes,50(Summer), 35 339. Gillespie,A.(1980).Letter(ref.384/ARG:bjw-263)toRogerW.Ehrich(ComputerScience,Vir- giniaPolytechnicInstitute&StateUniversity),10October.SuppliedtoauthorbyProfessor Ehrich. James,D.(n.d.). PhotographicInterpretationReport 4LochNess (ReportonafilmtakenbyTim Dinsdale). LN&MP(LochNess&MorarProject)(1983). LochNessProjectReport. LochNess&Morar Project. Mackal,R.(1976). TheMonstersofLochNess. Chicago:Swallow. Mangiacopra,G.(2001).LettertoHenryBauer,dated15November. Razdan,R.,&Kielar,A.(1984 385).SonarandphotographicsearchesfortheLochNessMon- ster:Areassessment. SkepticalInquirer,9(Winter), 147 358. Rines,R.,Edgerton,H.E.,Wyckoff,C.,Klein,M.,Needleman,R.,&Curtis,H.S.(1985). LochNessreanalysis:Rinesresponds. SkepticalInquirer,9(Summer), 382 37. Samuelson,R.J.(2001). Untruth:WhytheConventionalWisdomis(AlmostAlways)Wrong. New York:ATRANDOM.COM. Whyte,C.(1957). MoreThanaLegend. London:HamishHamilton. Witchell,N.(1974). TheLochNessStory. Lavenham,UnitedKingdom:TerenceDalton. Wyckoff,C.W.(1984).LettertoHenryAnatoleGrunwald,editorinchief, Discover magazine, 27August;copysuppliedtoauthorbyWyckoff. CommonKnowledgeAboutLochNessMonster477

less