Don’t get me wrong, Shine and Raynor are nice men with good intentions. But are they experts when it comes to the Loch Ness Monster? If so how does one become a Nessie expert? What exactly are the qualifications? Which schools offer a degree program? I would certainly take either of these men at their word when it comes to objective comments on Loch Ness dealing with its weather, commonly seen animals, surface conditions, ect. But what in their resumes qualifies them to make subjective judgments about Nessie evidence that are more valid than anyone else’s?

Whatever you think of Rines (and there are certainly some bad things to say about him) my point was that he had enough drag in the 1970s to roam the halls at M.I.T. and bring together some serious brainpower and technical support, including Harold Edgerton. Is he one of the great minds of our time? Of course not, but he isn’t a hoaxer either and he deserves credit for putting together the most comprehensive invasive search for the LNM ever conducted.

As for the flipper photo, this is one of those topics that can generate hours of good debate. There were apparently three versions of the photo. The raw image, a version enhanced at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and a third enhanced version that appeared on the cover of “Nature”. My feeling is that the original raw image is interesting in itself and yields some useful information. The JPL enhanced version highlighted this detail using accepted methods and I have not read any criticism of their work. In fact, it has since been successfully duplicated. It’s the third version that causes problems. It is clearly an airbrushed version of the JPL enhancement. Was this Rines’ doing or the work of a magazine editor? Who knows. Regardless, Rines shot himself in the foot by throwing his evidence to the media before giving the scientific community a chance to study it. However, this shouldn’t detract from the fact that enhancement number one is an incredibly compelling photograph. Again, I’ve never heard anyone question JPL’s work on this photo. I’ve also never heard anyone explain what known living animal has a fin shaped liked the appendage in the photo.

Don’t forget, however, the other Rines photos. Even if you go with Dick Raynor’s assessment of the “Gargoyle Head” as a tree stump, that leaves the body/neck shot and the shot of the animal from the rear quarter as it moves away from the camera. Skeptics can pick apart any of these photos individually. But I wonder what the chances are of obtaining four separate underwater photographs in Loch Ness on two different occasions of various prosaic phenomena (suspended silt, tree stumps, bubbles) that by sheer coincidence happen to bear more than a passing resemblance to what certain portions of the Loch Ness Monster are supposed to look like according to the anecdotal evidence? Even if you accept all the criticism of the way the photographic and sonar equipment was employed, I think the odds would favor the existence of the monster over the convergence of so many unlikely events.

Merry Christmas!

!. Robert Rines is “highly educated” and a “respected” “faculty [member] of one of America’s premier scientific establishments, M.I.T.” Poor Dick Raynor is but a mere “amateur investigator” whose view of the Nessie issue “doesn’t mean anything.” Likewise, Adrian Shine is “not a scientist” and doesn’t have the credentials to call himself a “naturalist.” This set up of the issue is a wee bit slanted.

It apparently counts for nothing that Raynor and Shine have spent decades of investigation at loch side. Conversely, published reports of Rines’ employing a psychic in his quest for Nessie, or his stated belief that Nessie may be albino, apparently do not count against his scientific credentials.

2. The Rines’ underwater photos are dismissed because they do not appear to show an animate object. The “flipper” photo looked interesting until it was revealed that it was highly “enhanced” and hence altered. The original photo (publicized later) does not look like an animate object. The “head” photo and “neck and body” photo are embarrassing. They do not look like an animate object, and they certainly don’t look like different shots of the same object. Raynor has published photos of waterlogged tree stumps that are uncannily similar to the Rines’ “head” photo.

3. I have been on both sides of the Nessie issue, first as close to a “true believer” as one could be, and later as an open minded skeptic. I remember when I was enchanted by Nessie, any fuzzy or (probably} hoaxed picture from Ness would mesmerize me. Why? Because it would confirm what I believed. Similarly, even though the the Rines’ photos are dubious, folks cling to them because they allegedly confirm (and conform to) their pro-Nessie beliefs.

4. The only way skeptics could show conclusively that Nessie does not exist would be to drain the loch. That will not happen. So, in lieu of that event, skeptics can only look at the evidence of sightings, and those are generally problematical.

5. I still believe two events at Ness are promising for Nessie advocates. The Dinsdale film is one. Generally, skeptics dismiss the film as showing a boat at a distance. This well may be the true explanation. The “creature” does seem to ride too high in the water for a subsurface swimming animal. On the other hand, it does seem to submerge (a mirage?), something a boat couldn’t do. And we do have Dinsdale word that he viewed the object through binoculars before filming. He said he saw a humped back of a large animal. He may have been mistaken, but he was a very honest fellow.

The other event at Ness that is intriguing is the “over turned boat” sightings phenomena that occurs at Ness. Most Nessie sightings I think can be attributed to standing waves, water fowl, mirages, (yes) otters etc., but what accounts for people seeing an “over turned boat” that begins to move or submerge?

6. I don’t think the lesson we should learn from the recent Holmes film has been recognized yet. His film shows the classic Nessie image and I believe it can match up with many sketches of Nessie made by observers. This is important because the film may very well be of an (yes) otter.

The fact that Dick Raynor has posted a lengthy rebuttal of them doesn’t mean anything. Dick Raynor is neither an expert nor a scientist. He’s an amateur investigator and nice guy who drives a tour boat on Loch Ness. None of his assertions are any more compelling than the photographs themselves. Same holds true for Adrian Shine. Nice guy, interesting, but not a scientist. He is usually referred to as a “naturalist”, although I’m pretty sure that title requires more credentials than he possesses. Dr. Edgerton, on the other hand, was a scientist (inventor of the strobe light among other things). Rines was a patent attorney (as he is rich I assume he was a good one) who taught patent law at M.I.T. As a faculty member he had access to a premier selection of the best minds available in a wide variety of disciplines. His camera and sonar gear were constructed in M.I.T. labs and tested in the giant ocean tank at the New England Aquarium. Not many people are given access to resources like that and it’s safe to assume that he wouldn’t have been given access to them had he been a charlatan, practical joker, or blind believer.

As for the Surgeon’s photo, I don’t consider this one case closed either. A death bed confession, serious inconsistencies in Spurling’s story, and a disregard for the second photo hardly make for a rock solid case.

It’s interesting to note how the theories offered against Nessie wind-up being more convoluted and poorly supported than those in favor of her existence. When questioned about this most skeptics will claim that the burden isn’t on them to prove anything. That may be true up to the point that they enter the debate and start publishing blogs, books, and articles. From then on they can be be held to the same standards of scholarship as Nessie’s proponents.

Occam’s Razor tells us to favor the simplest answer that makes sense. It doesn’t, however, require us to accept theories that do not make sense because they seem more prosaic and conventional than the paranormal or pseudo-scientific alternatives. A theory in favor of Nessie’s existence would satisfy Occam if none of the simpler alternatives made logical sense.

Mr. Lovanski, your input is much appreciated by me and I respect the amount of research you have obviously done into these things and your knowledge about the Loch Ness phenomena. I hope to see more of your postings on this site in the future. By the way, I still find it hard to believe that you are worried about your English, as it is really very good!

Linguistically, I was not placing any negative or harsh connotations on the use of the word “agressive.”

I was using the word to befit the meaning of being “assertive, bold, and energetic.”

Intellectual primate aggression, I feel, can be important and stimulating within the interaction of ideas, and my apologies if I have been misread.

If anything, I only become engaged beyond the writing of a blog when I see something of interest that fires my passion.

This blog’s comment section, which I denoted, in my frame of reference, had some positive aggressive energy associated with it.

There was absolutely nothing ‘aggressive’ in my posts. All of my claims were thoroughly documented and logically coherent. In fact, I did say that I respected yours’ as well as other investigators’ opinions and arguments. I would not post on your blog if I didn’t respect you and your work (I read some of your books too with great interest).
There’s no reason to be aggressive or insulting when one rationally discusses any problem. It is only when emotional statement are made that the ground for insult is being set.

I thought my contribution to the forum would be appreciated and not taken as ‘aggressive’.

Regards,

A T Lovcanski

Therefore, unimportant details were forgotten or have been embellished through the passage of time, but the essence of the story was recollected by Spurling in 1992 - 60 years after the event. Independent examinations of the photos (their angle of photography; dimensions of the object, etc.), letters from R K Wilson himself, and other aspects, all tend to corroborate Spurling’s testimony.

As is the case with any hoax explanation, it is always easiest to construct and match a story with already existing evidence after the fact of that evidence being in existence.

As Richard Smith and others have shown, the “corroboration” of Spurling’s yarn is relative and does issue forth from a belief system that reinforces the debunking points of view that wish to be supported.

I find it amazing that the support of the shaky Spurling story is being defended, even with the aggressive assaults against the notion that the photos may have been nothing more than that of an otter or seal.

That has been a part of this that I find incredible to watch unfold.