Lake Monster Mysteries Read Online Free PDF Page B

object was, it was clear that the size of the ripples around the neck didn’t match the bulk of a full-size monster. These ripples were also consistent with something which had been dropped into the water rather than one which had risen up from underneath. It was pretty clear to reasonable observers that if there was a monster, its most famous portrait was of something else. (Hoggart and Hutchinson 1995)
OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS
    The many other apparently hoaxed photographs of Nessie include one taken in 19 51 of a three-humped monster—or, rather, three misaligned and unnatural-looking humps. The monster they supposedly belonged to was unseen and left no wake.
    Another photo showing two humps of different sizes was taken in the water beside Urquhart Castle in 1955, but there are two versions of the photograph, prompting monster-hunting professor Roy Mackal to ask: “If the object did, indeed, appear on the water in the original negative exposed of the scene, why was it necessary to rephotograph the‘original’ print, with the resulting two different versions?” (quoted in Binns 1984, 99–100, 102).
    And then there are the photographs of the Loch Ness monster and other lake denizens attributed to Tony “Doc” Shiels. Here, perhaps, we must consider the source: Shiels, a magician, self-described “psychic entertainer,” and professional Punch and Judy man, is also the author of books on successful hoaxing techniques. He told one magazine, “I am sure Nessie appeared as a result of my psychic powers” (Nickell 1994; Chorvinsky 1993). Shiels has also offered photos of the “Lough Leane aquatic monster,” allegedly made near Killarney Island in 1981, and of a sea serpent named Morgawr. Unfortunately, these two double-humped, long-necked creatures are “strikingly similar,” possibly, according to one researcher, “shot using the same technique, that of a sculpted plasticine monster stuck onto a pane of glass in front of the camera” (Chorvinsky 1993).
    Still other Nessie photos may not be hoaxes but depict some natural object, such as driftwood or a swimming deer. A motion picture film taken in 1960 by monster hunter Tim Dinsdale was analyzed by the Royal Air Force’s Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Center, which concluded that the moving object, seen from a mile away, could be a motorboat. Indeed, Dinsdale reported that the object was a reddish brown color, to which Binns responded in The Loch Ness Mystery Solved: “An object which appears reddish brown at such a distance is clearly something which is relatively brightly coloured. Reddish brown is a reasonable color for a motor boat, but an unusual one for a Loch Ness monster” (Binns 1984, 107–25).
UNDERWATER SEARCHES
    An underwater photo taken in 1972 by Robert Rines and a crew from his Academy of Applied Science garnered considerable media attention for its supposed depiction of a “flipper” from an unknown creature. As it happens, the computer-enhanced picture was found to have been “significantly altered to give the impression of the flipperlike objects that appear in the published version” (Razdan and Kielar, 1984–85). The unaltered picture could depict virtually anything ( figure 1.4 ). In addition, the academy’s sonar evidence, which Rines cited as supporting his interpretation of the “flipper” photograph, was discredited by an expert review (Razdan and Kielar, 1984–85).

    Figure 1.4 Underwater picture supposedly of a monster's flipper, made in 1972 by Robert Rines (above), was heavily enhanced. The unenhanced picture (below) isn’t proof of anything. (Photos courtesy of the Academy of Applied Science)

    Defensively, Rines told 60 Minutes II (December 5, 2001): “I’m crazy, I’m crazy. You know Christopher Columbus; I’m nowhere near the great man he was, and he was told by all the people who knew everything about