A clue may lie in an article Burton wrote for the Sunday Express on the 2nd August 1959 entitled " Is there really a Loch Ness Monster?". In this article, Seven members of the newly formed LNIB (Loch Ness Investigation Bureau) observed an object travelling through the water at Urquhart Bay during an expedition in 1962. It was the 18th of October and it was in the afternoon that they filmed an object approximately 200 metres away, described as being a 'long dark shape'. I was within 25 yards of the creature when the photograph was taken, I am not sure if the light or my voice frightened it—one or both did. I am not fully satisfied that it was the same creature as seen on Wednesday May 24th, as it was smaller and a different colour. I think both skins were wet or at least damp - one on Friday certainly was. I do not know why I was frightened of it as it reminded me of a docile swan - perhaps it was the power it had at its disposal and the fact it was an unknown quantity.

So, it is no surprise this " convincing" reproduction has never been published and I wager never shall. What we do have is a truly awful reproduction that Burton made at Loch Ness and had published in the Illustrated London News dated July 23rd 1960. This article was essentially a report on his week's trip to Loch Ness. These sightings, like too many that are accepted into the 'official' record, are absolute junk. It gives this whole endeavour a bad name. It begs the question, who's in charge here, and what criteria do they apply to 'accept' a sighting? I was trained in science and research and know what is needed, although some people just have it, and some don't. This 'register' is not good, to put it mildly. bailiff, Alex Campbell, could only recall seeing two such mats in his forty odd years (and even then it was clear what they were).We can, after these statements, safely say that JARIC could not work the speed of the object out without taking into account the winding times.

So did I imply that "Burton [is] the figurehead of skeptics who all others look up to and mimic"? Clearly not since I said his work on vegetable mats had been discredited by subsequent research. The sensational result of Dinsdale's Expedition was to inspire an extraordinary revival of the mystery and trigger two decades of intensive surveillance of the loch's baffling surface. [22] Burton, M., 1961. The Elusive Monster: An Analysis of the Evidence from Loch Ness. London: Rupert Hart-Davis. It all ended in acrimony, with Searle bitter about serious scientific endeavour, becoming loved and loathed in equal measure and finally departing Loch Ness for ever in 1983. Before we look at the JARIC report mention should be made of the inconsistency of the length and time of the film.

Jones, R. I., 2001. Sources and fluxes of inorganic carbon in a deep, oligotrophic lake (Loch Ness, Scotland). Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 5, 863–870. So the report does not point to the object being the monster but nothing more exciting than a local fishing boat. Tim had to make adecision; he decided to stop and savethelast precious feet of film. He raced down thenarrow road toreach the loch side, hoping the animal would resurface. This timehe wouldbe close enough to capture the creature in clear, indisputable detail. Instead of positing inflated monsters, it would be simpler to read the text of the description of the camp to come to another conclusion. I note Burton says a branch was tied down to form a bivouac. This implies O' Connor brought no tent but improvised a shelter. That required some material to form the covering - such as plastic sheets or canvas. I think O' Connor brought polythene sheets to form a bivouac with and simply burnt some or all of them when he decamped. Burton was allowing his desire to find a monster hoax colour his interpretation of the scene. You do not, after all, abandon a comfortably ordinary lifestyle in Dorset to live in a van that has seen better days on the edge of Loch Ness, in often-brutal weather, unless you are a few pennies short of a pound (he is, but only in the literal sense). You do not, unless you are seriously round the twist, publicise a passionate belief in the existence of the Loch Ness monster. And however deranged you might be, you surely do not spend eight years doing little else but sitting on a beach in the hope that the elusive beast might show you its humps. Or do you?

This film offers creditable proof of some large animal living in Loch Ness and was agreed by many experts to be an authentic and convincing series of shots. Young, J. M., Jones, R. I., and Bailey-Watts, A. E. Verhandlungen, der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Theoratischen und Angevand. Does this actually mean anything that leads one to a solid deduction? The logic applied here clearly attempts to synergise separate objects into the concept of a larger whole (a hoax). However, the argument relies on these smaller items having clear, designated functions. You know when you're in your English lesson and the teacher says 'Give a talk on your favourite subject'? Well, after that holiday I had a ready-made lecture to give my class. After that I started reading books on it, and from there I was just hooked.

Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster

The extent of this interest is impressive. Monster hunter Yoshio Kou insists that all Japanese children have learned about it by the age of four. His mission in the Seventies was one of the more impressive. With corporate sponsorship and a sizeable team, he set out to capture “four or five” of the monsters, intending to give one to Princess Anne as a wedding present. The pharmacist telephoned the surgery to speak to the doctor. Unfortunately there was no answer, but she suggested that I go there anyway.

I thought that was obvious. Burton's beach findings story is used as evidence against the O'Connor story by Campbell, Harmsworth and Naish (and no doubt other places). Seventh point rejected. The Man Who Filmed Nessie: Tim Dinsdale and the Enigma of Loch Ness is an essential read for those seriously interested in the history of monster searching and the people who engage in it. The book has very high production values and impressive design and editorial standards, and includes an excellent colour plate section. I enjoyed reading it and think that Angus Dinsdale has produced a book that his late father would have been proud of, and moved by. Many interesting people have contributed to the lore of the Loch Ness Monster, and Dinsdale was without doubt one of the most important and influential. I leave you to judge whether this was time wasted, or a life enriched and made remarkable. His lifestyle might be unconventional ("Hand to mouth - I like it that way"), his vocation extraordinary, if not inconceivable. Yet he is articulate, engaging and pretty convincing. Still, despite all appearances to the contrary, you are inclined to think that Steve Feltham is surely stark raving bonkers.

The awful webcam images, our new mainstay, are nowhere near acceptable as evidence, in my opinion. Intriguing, yes, but that's it. No offence to the observers, but the images have the clarity of a fogged up window. One wonders if a turn of the century webcam is about as good as we're going to leave it, to allow disbelief to be suspended. Beautiful, Big, Bold Dinosaur Books: of Molina-Pérez and Larramendi’s Theropods, Rey’s Extreme Dinosaurs 2, and Parker et al.’s Saurian