To the Editor:
In "Nessie Hoax Redux" (March 1996), Joe
Nickell ignores the greater issue raised in my November 1995 article in
Fate magazine -- the unacceptable double standard applied during
debates over cryptozoology.
Self-proclaimed conspirator Christian Spurling waited more than a half century
before claiming to have helped stepfather M. A. Wetherell use a modified toy
submarine to fake a "Nessie" image in 1934; he never presented a shred of
corroborating evidence to support his allegations; he was suspiciously vague
when asked about a second, lesser-known photo; and he even failed to identify
the bay where the hoax supposedly took place.
What if Spurling had claimed to have really seen and photographed a large
unknown animal? Would this level of "proof" still be acceptable? Of course
not. But because he was debunking Lt. Col. R. Kenneth Wilson's famous photo the
rules are very loose indeed. His mere say-so is okay. Ronald Binns excuses
lapses and contradictions in Spurling's story by suggesting that he was an old
man when he finally gave his account and "maybe just confused." (Of course,
scientific studies have shown that it is short term, not long term, memory that
typically fades with age.) Worse still, Binns and other apologists are ready to
blithely modify Spurling's account whenever problems arise -- "Maybe he was
right about how the model was made but wrong about the dimensions," Binns
hypothesizes -- until what should be consistent, definitive testimony becomes
conveniently malleable.
Spurling's supporters allow no such excuses for Col. Wilson, who denied on
occasion late in life that he ever photographed a Loch Ness monster; not
allowing that this was likely his way of getting rid of pesky reporters. (In
fact, Wilson stuck by his original story when interviewed in the 1960s by
Member of Parliament Sir David James.)
Nickell calls Binns' The Loch Ness Mystery Solved "the definitive
skeptical book on the subject." That honor should go to Steuart Campbell's
The Loch Ness Monster (Aquarian Press, 1986). Campbell is the best
and most thorough of the Nessie debunkers -- therefore it is highly significant
that he too rejects Spurling's toy submarine story. In a letter to the CSICOP
magazine Skeptical Inquirer ("Nessie `model'
explanation suspect," March/April 1995), Campbell
notes: "In their eagerness to undermine paranormal claims, writers in SI
exhibit a tendency to accept any normal explanation, whether or not there is
adequate evidence."
How true. There have certainly been many hoaxes at Loch Ness, and we must all
remain vigilant against bunkum. But rationality demands that we have one
stringent standard of evidence for proponent and debunker alike, and that we
never abandon a healthy skepticism to embrace stories as flimsy and
unsubstantiated as the one told by the late Christian Spurling.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Smith
What Richard Smith sees as an "unacceptable double standard" is simply the
necessary implementation of the maxim, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof." This means one must have considerably more proof for the
sighting of a sea monster than for that of a fish -- or a sea-serpent model.
While Smith attempts to cast doubt on details of the photo affair, the
arguments of Binns and others are persuasive that the famous photograph is
indeed a hoax (as related in the March 1996
column). The points Smith raises range from the untrue to the dubious, as
we have seen, and he is merely repeating himself. In response, I will repeat
again what Simon Hoggart and Mike Hutchinson so aptly state in their
Bizarre Beliefs (1995, pp. 198-99): "...given an explanation which
fits virtually all the facts, and meshes in so neatly with what are known of
Duke Wetherell [a previous Nessie hoaxer] (and the gullibility of tabloid
newspaper editors) it seems positively perverse not to accept the Spurling
account."