HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Loch Ness Monsters again

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/13

HIV/AIDS groupies and vigilantes like to assert — most recently in attempting to critique Patricia Goodson’s fine review of 30 years of failed HIV/AIDS theory (Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent) — that my interest in the possible existence of “Loch Ness Monsters” marks me as not to be listened to about anything, no matter the evidence I adduce. In response, some years ago I detailed what my “belief” about Nessies actually is (Henry Bauer and the Loch Ness monsters). Later that year I posted a Tribute to Robert Rines, who had carried out some of the most ingenious modern searches for the creatures (Science, media, and Loch Ness “monsters”).

Some of the most objective and compelling evidence for the existence of these creatures comes from sonar (“The Case for the Loch Ness Monster: The Scientific Evidence”Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16(2): 225–246 [2002]) and a few underwater photos taken simultaneously with sonar echoes, but such technical stuff is less subjectively convincing than “seeing with one’s own eyes”. For the latter, there is no substitute for the film taken by Tim Dinsdale in 1960. Recently Tim’s son Angus published a book, The Man Who Filmed Ness: Tim Dinsdale and the Enigma of Loch Ness, whose website contains a link  that enables anyone to see the film itself on-line. Grainy as the film is, small as the Nessie’s back may seem at the range of a mile, you need to know only one thing to judge its significance:

The most determined debunkers, of whom there have been quite a few, have been able to suggest only one alternative explanation to this being a film of a large unidentified creature, of a species far larger than anything know to be in Loch Ness: That what seems to be a black hump, curved in cross-section and length, which submerges but continues to throw up a massive wake, is actually a boat with an outboard motor. Several magnified and computer-enhanced frames of the massive wake on my website show quite clearly that nothing material is visible above the wake after the hump has submerged.

If the most dedicated “skeptics” can offer no better explanation than this, then I feel justified in believing that Dinsdale filmed a genuine Nessie.
It reminds me of the Christian apologist, I think probably G. K. Chesterton or Malcolm Muggeridge, who remarked that the best argument for the truth of Christianity is the attempts by disbelievers to discredit it.
If there is one thing that the hump filmed by Dinsdale is certainly NOT, it’s a boat with an outboard motor.

12 Responses to “Loch Ness Monsters again”

  1. davidcrowe said

    I think the most important point about the Loch Ness Monster and science … is that if there are no scientists brave enough to study it, then there cannot be a scientific opinion on its existence. For scientists to sit back and say that they ‘know’ that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because … because they just know, is an appeal to faith, not science.

  2. Ban trees now! said

    Dear Henry, You are very talented but you just don’t get the mindset of 99% of the human race. You lose both ways round. The Loch Ness thesis is discredited (in their minds) by association with lunatic aids denialism, and the aids denialist thesis is discredited (in their minds) by association with the Loch Ness looney belief.

    Very few people think “I don’t know what to think of this until I’ve studied the evidence for myself”. Instead they think “important successful people are telling me this is absolute truth and only some fringe weirdoes deny it, so I’ll safely conclude the former are right and not waste my time looking at any supposed evidence of being otherwise”.

    In this context you have to limit your intellectual war to a minimal number of fronts else you will lose on all. For instance I keep my comments anon on here not because I am ashamed of them but because it protects me from drivel such as “John Cloggs is a vile aids denialist too so there’s no reason why we should waste time with the nonsense he’s putting forward on subject x too”. Similarly you will notice that George Monbiot has NEVER published anything about Islam (in many hundreds of articles). I know for a fact that he has considerable views about it though, because he used to share platforms with pro-Islam people and after a certain event he completely dissociated himself therefrom. Just he knows he has to limit the number of fronts he has to defend on.

    In respect of Loch Ness it is even worse for several reasons.
    Firstly it is very easy to interpret it as just a tourism sales trick by local scots exploiting gullible twats with initials HB. (the fact that so-so produced some video is irrelevant because they don’t know about it anyway).
    Secondly just about everyone and his dead cat are now on youtube, and far more people drive around remote Scotland than ever did in auld lang etc. If there really were some monster in there, the chances of not even a hint being caught on youtube (or even a decent digital image( by now is infinitessimal. Therefore the earlier “evidence” is far more sensibly dismissed as a remaining mystery (along with “dark matter”) rather than considered credible evidence of a monster whose picture has never been clearly caught.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Ban trees now!:
      I don’t disagree with anything you say. But my interests have all been public for a long time, on my website as well as elsewhere. What I chiefly try to do is to ignore the nasties and ignoramuses who populate the Internet, Wkipedia, etc., and just keep writing for and communicating with those whose minds remain somewhat open.
      It’s also the case that individuals who find themselves maligned over dissenting on ONE topic don’t realize that this is nothing “personal”, it’s over the range of modern “scientific” beliefs. I think that’s an important thing to learn, so I keep plugging away; e.g. in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth or my talk (HIV/AIDS blunder is far from unique in the annals of science and medicine) at the 2009 Oakland conference of Rethinking AIDS (I don’t think the streaming works, but the video can be downloaded).

    • Ban trees now! said

      “HIV/AIDS blunder is far from unique in the annals of science and medicine”
      Indeed, I reckon more and more people are realising that just about the whole medical establishment has become a charlatan’s paradise. Some seriously damning recent books include “Deadly medicines and organised crime” (which fully lives up to its title!), and “Dissolving Illusions”. These and others are all the more damning for coming from “insiders” who outed themselves.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Ban trees now!:
        Dozens of books and articles have exposed the grievous errors of present-day drug-based mainstream medicine, for a representative bibliography see “WHAT’S WRONG WITH PRESENT-DAY MEDICINE”

      • Ban trees now! said

        Indeed. But I am wondering how many of those have been prominently published and reviewed, rather than just producing relatively few copies. I suspect some of the more recent are getting larger audiences. By the way, I think you overrate the scientific quality of Whitaker’s books and I found Anatomy of an Epidemic to contain too little evidence strung out very poorly with no attempt at systematically presenting it coherently. Which is just as well as it fails to support its thesis with any solidity.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Ban trees now!:
        We disagree over Whitaker’s “Anatomy…”. I found his 30 pages of notes citing respectable sources more than adequate. It was this book that led me to read ore about psychiatric drugs, and I’ve had no occasion to find fault with what Whitaker had written.

  3. Ban trees now! said

    Here’s one far more credibie explanation I’ve thought up in a jif. A mini-tornado (of which there are countless every year, you can even see them yourself sometimes blowing leaves and litter around). But invisible on the lake except for the water disturbance, which can also create an illusion of solid things too (dark dip in the water). No need for radically weird science there.

    Also consider in my parent’s house (and probably a million other twats’ houses) the pair of silly “romantic” paintings “Up along Clovelly” and “Down along Clovelly”. At which you look and think how pretty with that donkey climbing up the steep street, we must go to Clovelly to see it ourselves. And of course a million twats all go along to see a street full of the other million twats and chock-full of tat-shops selling to those twats. Same principle in Loch Looney except it costs even more to travel up there than down to Devon.

    Monbiot also never mentions the Holohoax (/”Holocaust”) either. Same principle of limit your fronts to manageable.

  4. Ban trees now! said

    Most likely explanation for that very grainy film from 50 yrs ago is that the film-maker was in on the trick to generate publicity. Using a submarine device.

    By stupendous “coincidence” he “just happened” to be there with the costly camera, whereas now when zillions are driving around with digicams no-one ever gets a shot in years. Pull my other one please.
    No great scientific wowwee required.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Ban trees now!:
      Your guess about the Dinsdale film is unsupportable. The determined debunkers never tried this one because it doesn’t hold water from any point of view. The most dedicated non-believers never questioned Dinsdale’s integrity. I came to know him in 1973 and saw the 35mmm version of the film many times. For half a century no one familiar with the facts has been able to suggest anything other than boat as an alternative to a Nessie.

      • Ban trees now! said

        Oh for Jees’s sake Henry.

        “The determined debunkers never tried this one because it doesn’t hold water from any point of view.”

        As you will demonstrate….?

        “The most dedicated non-believers never questioned Dinsdale’s integrity.”

        Very kind and diplomatic of them but so what?

        “I came to know him in 1973 and saw the 35mmm version of the film many times.”

        Again, so what? Nothing in your reply constitutes serious evidence that his film wasn’t part of a hoax. It’s even possible that he was an unwitting actor in the hoax.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Ban trees now!:
        You do better on topics where you are more familiar with the facts. To see an attempted fake, Google for the Malcolm Irvine film.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: