The show did not include comments from even one token reputable scientist. Instead, Heston would state the conventional wisdom, and then let the scientists interviewed for the show present their fantastic claims unchallenged. The first such experts who testified were Michael Cremo and Dr. Richard Thompson, authors of Forbidden Archaeology. They claimed that Humans of modern anatomical type have been existing for many many millions of years into the past, denying the current consensus that modern man appeared less than a tenth of a million years ago. Anomalous cases, such as the alleged 55-million-year-old tools found in Table Mountain in the 1880s by J. D. Whitney, or the supposed 250,000-year-old artifacts found by Virginia Steen-McIntyre in Mexico a couple of decades ago, were discussed. Thompson then declared that the resistance of mainstream science to these findings is not a deliberate conspiracy, but an automatic rejection by almost all scientists of any evidence that doesn't conform to existing theories. He stated that this routine hiding of anomalous results prevents science from progressing. If the assertion that scientists ignore all unusual or contrary data is true, then indeed, science would not progress. My question is: if this is the case, how can Thompson explain the fact that science has progressed, especially in the last century? Many new ideas have come along to upset existing paradigms: relativity, quantum mechanics, continental drift, and punctuated equilibrium, to name a few. Thompson’s argument that scientists have ingrained antipathy to new or controversial ideas is clearly specious.

The next segment featured Carl Baugh, who talked about the supposed human footprints found alongside dinosaur tracks at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. The voice-over introduced him as archaeologist Carl Baugh, but the on-screen title referred to him as anthropologist Carl Baugh. In real life, however, Baugh is best known as Reverend Carl Baugh. Baugh claimed some of the Paluxy trackways include 16-inch human footprints, 12 in a series, alternating left-right-left-right, the right distance apart... No mention was made of the painstaking research performed by Glen Kuban, Ronnie Hastings, Laurie Godfrey and others a decade ago, which showed conclusively that these trackways are made by dinosaurs. When mud fills in the toes of a fresh tridactyl dinosaur print, the resultant track can look similar to a human’s. Some of the alleged human prints belong in the same left-right series as obvious dinosaur tracks. Kuban and associates also found color indications of dinosaur toes in tracks which were supposedly human. At least these tracks are not obvious fakes, unlike Baugh’s next bit of supposedly most compelling evidence which was discussed: the Burdick Print. This and similar prints first appeared in the 1930s. They are clearly suspect: the features (toes, heel, etc.) are abnormally shaped, and much too well delineated. The Burdick print looks nothing like a real imprint of a foot in the mud, and bears little resemblance to human anatomy (even for a supposed giant). However, expert Dr. Dale Peterson, M.D. assured the audience that the print was clearly human. Geologist Don Patton pointed to subsurface contours in a cross-section through the print as evidence that the features were not carved. Next up was a supposed fossil finger, with smooth skin-covered flesh preserved intact, and with what resembles a fingernail. (While a very few fossilized patches of tough, scaly dinosaur skin have been found, preservation of soft human tissue would be extremely unlikely!) Peterson pointed to images of finger bones and joints in a CAT scan of the finger. However, the bones were not clearly distinct; rather, they simply looked like a progressive darkening of the scan in thicker portions of the specimen. Some grooved spherical nodules, from the pre-Cambrian (2.8 billion years old), were also touted as evidence of human artifacts.

Author David Hatcher Childress then claimed that geological time scales are wrong by several orders of magnitude, and that dinosaurs may still be alive today. He showed a photograph of a supposed plesiosaur carcass dredged up on a Japanese fishing boat; Heston condescendingly noted that Skeptics claim it’s the body of a decomposing shark. [It probably is.]

Heston’s next target was Charles Darwin himself. Richard Milton, author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, stated that not one missing link supporting the common ancestry of man and apes has ever been found. Milton stated that Lucy is just an ape; he made no mention of the fact that Lucy’s teeth are more human-like than ape-like in many respects. A cartoon of a tree, with Man on the top branches, and Apes below, was shown; as the animated branch broke, Heston declared So far, conclusive evidence of a missing link has not been found. Milton went on to say that the lack of an ape-human missing link was sufficient to topple the entire edifice of evolution. No consideration was given to the tremendous amount of data that support evolution in non-primate species (fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular structures, etc.).

In the last half of the show, Neil Steede argued that the perfect fit of stones in Incan monuments indicated a high culture, and that the present-day misalignment of solstice markers can only be explained if the monuments were built over 12 thousand years ago. Steede based this conjecture on a 41,000-year, half-degree wobble of the Earth’s axis (which turns out to be a real phenomenon). While recent-era astronomical solstice locations are not aligned with the rounded markers Steede interpreted as the real markers, the solstice locations do appear to be aligned with the sides of the tower walls where they cross the horizon. The fact that Steed can conjure up an alignment consistent only with his 12,000 year age hardly proves that this is what the actual builders intended. Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods, cited similarities in the megalithic cultures of Mexico, South America, and Egypt, and then claimed that these prove the common influence of a third, unidentified culture. Robert Banval employed more vague astronomical alignments to prove that the Sphinx was built 12,000 years ago. Hancock continued with a discussion of crustal displacement. Unlike continental drift, crustal displacement (developed by a Professor Hapgood) involves a radical motion of the Earth’s entire outer crust. Hancock and others put forth the idea that 12,500 years ago, Antarctica was not at the South Pole, but in a moderate latitude, and that Atlantis was located there. When too much ice built up on the poles of that era, the entire crust slid around, suddenly moving Atlantis/Antarctica to its present cold location. No evidence supporting this fantastic claim was presented, and no one bothered to mention that readily available data clearly refute this hypothesis. For example, most climatologists agree that the Antarctic ice shelf is a stable feature that has been around for 14 million years, and the Vostok ice core from Antarctica was carefully dated back to at least 150,000 years ago by a variety of independent methods. [Why this idea was refuted just a few minutes earlier in the same show, when we were told that 12,000 years ago, the Earth’s axis was tilted by just one half of a degree, not the 90 ° required for an Antarctic Atlantis.] Heston concluded the show by stating that It’s been said that man has made the climb from Stone Age to civilization more than once, and that our present time is just the latest in this cycle.

Ironically, scientists are not the only ones fuming over Origins. Arch-creationist Ken Ham slammed the production in the Feb. ‘96 Answers in Genesis newsletter. In a review entitled Hollywood’s ‘Moses’ Undermines Genesis, Ham attacked fellow creationist Carl Baugh’s ‘manprints,’ stating that “According to leading creationist researchers, this evidence is open to much debate and needs much more intensive research. One wonders how much of the information in the program can really be trusted!” Then Ham noted that the book Forbidden Archaeology “...is dedicated to ‘His Divine Grace: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.’ It appears the authors are Hare Krishna adherents!...Everything cycling continuously over millions of years fits well with Krishna philosophy! That seems to be what this program is all about!”

Ken Ham is right to note that the teachings of Hare Krishna are not a basis of good science. It seems quite unlikely that he will ever realize that his peculiar brand of fundamentalist Biblical inerrancy is similarly flawed. In the meantime, NBC has sunk to a new low in this latest promotion of pseudoscientific claptrap. I encourage anyone who doesn't appreciate NBC’s latest assault on science to respond by calling the complaint number (212-664-2333), or by writing Bob Wright at NBC New York, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112, or by writing the NBC staffer who actually purchased the show: Todd Schwartz, 3000 W. Alameda, Burbank, CA 91523. The company that produced the show can be contacted at: B. C. Video Inc., P.O. Box 97, Shelburne, VT 05482.

Over the years, Wilson seemed to tire of the controversy he had stirred up, telling one journalist that he made no claim as to having photographed a sea monster and that, moreover, he did not believe in the Ness creature. Subsequently, Wilson’s youngest son “bluntly admitted that his father’s pictures were fraudulent” (Binns 1984).

Then, in 1994 two Loch Ness researchers made news when they provided information that the photos were indeed a hoax, that they depicted a model made from a toy submarine to which had been affixed a neck and head fashioned of plastic wood (Nickell 1995). The researchers’ source was the late Christian Spurling who, two years prior to his death in late 1993, told how the prank had been conceived by his stepfather, Marmaduke Wetherell, with Dr. Wilson agreeing to take the photos (Genoni 1994).

Subsequently, writing in Fate — a magazine that promotes belief in paranormal topics — Richard D. Smith (1995) claims the hoax was itself a hoax, that Spurling’s story does not ring true. Smith claims the uncropped photograph shows it was not taken in “an inlet where the tiny ripples would look like full-sized waves” as alleged, and he raises other objections. For example, he says that an estimate of the scale based on the presumed size of the ripples argues that the creature was larger than the model Spurling describes. Then there is the supposed implausibility of why the model no longer exists: “Supposedly because the water bailiff [Alex Campbell] appeared and Wetherall quickly stepped on the toy, sinking it,” Smith rejoins. Smith’s article was sandwiched between a testimonial, “My Glimpse of Bigfoot,” and an article suggesting that “alien technology” was responsible for the strange hybrid creatures of Greek mythology.

It seemed to me that Smith’s points ranged from weak to dubious, but I decided to forego a response in hopes of soliciting a more expert opinion. I therefore wrote to Ronald Binns, author of the definitive skeptical book on the subject, The Loch Ness Mystery Solved (1984). Binns soon responded with a detailed three-page letter. He began by conceding that Smith’s perceived faults with Spurling’s story might suggest it was bogus. However, he said:

On the other hand, as Spurling was an old man when he was interviewed maybe he was just confused. After more than half a century anyone’s memory would surely be unreliable. Maybe he was right about how the model was made but wrong about the dimensions. Maybe the model sank accidentally (as did the hugely expensive model monster made for the Billy Wilder film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.)

Even if the object was 1.2 metres high, so what? It could still have been a model. My own fake Nessie (Plate 3 of The Loch Ness Mystery Solved) was a tiny cardboard cut-out head and neck stuck in the neck of a mineral-water bottle and covered in black plastic from a garbage bag (about 12” out of the water). It took ten minutes to make. I don’t doubt the Wilson model was better constructed. In the Wilson photo the dark shapes to the left and right of the head and neck could very well be the top portion of a toy submarine.

The second Wilson photograph obviously portrays a different object photographed in different weather conditions (and I suspect from a different angle). It may have been a cruder model, or it may have been a bird. If it is “rarely seen,” as Smith claims, that is because it is a bad photo of a very dubious object. Since it obviously isn’t the object shown in the more famous photo, the obvious question is how did Wilson manage to photograph two monsters?

Binns continued:

Black and white photographs are so much easier to fake than colour photographs, and still photographs are so much easier to fake than home-movie or video film. The fact that the object shown in Wilson’s photograph is very close to the shore is itself very suspicious, as this is just what one would expect from a model thrown into the loch. There is also almost what amounts to a basic rule about Nessie photos and films. The photos, being fakes and/or models, are always of an object relatively close to the photographer. The movie film, being genuine footage of an object which is not a monster, is always too far away to be properly identifiable.

Richard D. Smith is wrong about the object not being photographed in an inlet. The part of the loch where Wilson said he took his photo consists of a series of inlets and there is no reason to suppose it wasn’t photographed in one of these inlets (the promontories of which would not have shown in the Wilson photo). Now that we have most of the original print what is surely striking is how the object photographed is more or less dead centre — rather too neatly and well composed for what is alleged to be an animal photographed by chance.

Lastly, there is the curious anomaly of the date. Wilson told the Daily Mail he took the photograph on April 19th (1934). However, in Rupert Gould’s book The Loch Ness Monster (1934) the date is given as April 1st. Perhaps this was a misprint, or perhaps the information come from Wilson and was his way of signalling that the photo was a leg-pull (since in Britain April 1st is “All Fool’s Day” when leg-pulling and practical jokes are the order of the day and even the newspapers carry deliberately bogus stories as a joke) . . .

Binns concluded with some philosophical thoughts:

I suspect after all this time we are never going to find out the full facts of the Wilson photo. The telling case against this and all the other Nessie photos is that in later years no one has ever managed to film the objects shown in either colour film, on a home-movie or on a video. The only photographic evidence from the loch which is at all intriguing is the Raynor film of 1967, and that, in my opinion, shows an otter or otters.

I was interested to read in the last edition of Nicholas Witchell’s The Loch Ness Story that he had discovered that the famous Lachlan Stuart photograph was a hoax involving bales of hay covered in tarpaulin. What has probably been lost sight of over the years is the impact which the Wilson and Stuart photographs had on monster-hunters back in the 1960s and 1970s. In those days we all firmly believed that they were genuine photographs and that the monster was indeed a very big animal with a long giraffe-like neck, capable of transforming itself into a three-humped object.

My impression from a UK perspective is that interest in Nessie has ebbed in a big way since the 1970s, and nowadays people interested in mysteries are far more likely to go in pursuit of crop circles (which from a sociological perspective has many curious parallels with the Loch Ness monster saga).

In addition to Binns’ review, another critique of the Spurling story comes from a fine new book, Bizarre Beliefs, written by Simon Hoggart and Mike Hutchinson (the latter being the Skeptical Inquirer's official and indefatigable representative in the United Kingdom). Citing arguments against Spurling’s account — e.g. that the toy submarine would have been unable to have carried the weight of the plastic-wood neck and head and the lead ballast strip used to keep the model stable — Hoggart and Hutchinson state:

“...given an explanation which fits virtually all the facts, and meshes in so neatly with what we know of Duke Wetherell (and the gullibility of tabloid newspaper editors) it seems positively perverse not to accept the Spurling account.”

(Wetherall had perpetrated an earlier Loch Ness hoax in which a set of “monster tracks” turned out to have been made by a hippo hoof, apparently taken from an umbrella stand.) Hoggart and Hutchinson point out that, in all probability,

“The dark patch in front of the neck, often described as a ‘flipper,’ was in fact the deck of the [toy] submarine.”

Even aside from the specific Spurling claim, the authors of Bizarre Beliefs go on to say:

To be fair, very few people who have examined the Loch Ness legend, with the exception of the most dedicated believers, ever doubted that this picture was a hoax — or at least that it showed something other than a monster. There were many possible explanations: the shape of the head and neck had been cut out and stuck to a bottle which had been floated on the loch; perhaps it could have been a log, a bird or an otter’s tail. In any event, though there was nothing else in the picture to judge how big the 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)

Long ago, Time magazine pointed out that “There is hardly enough food in the loch to support such leviathans,” adding that “in any case, there would have to be at least twenty animals in a breeding herd” for the species to have continued to reproduce over the years.

References

• Binns, Ronald. 1984. The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 96-100.
• — . 1995. Letter to Joe Nickell, December 11.
• Genoni, Tom. 1994. “After 60 Years, the Most Famous of All the ‘Nessie’ Photos Is Revealed as a Hoax,” Skeptical Inquirer 18:4 (Summer), 338-40.
• Hoggart, Simon, and Mike Hutchinson. 1995. Bizarre Beliefs. London: Richard Cohen Books, pp. 196-99.
• Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 170-71.
• Smith, Richard D. 1995. “The Classic Wilson Nessie Photo: Is the Hoax a Hoax?” Fate, November, 42-44.

Need we say more?

A wonderful document has wafted its way across my desk. It is either a press release or a scientific abstract. Its opening paragraph tells us: “The tracker is a serious scientific break through [sic] in modern physics. Its design and engineering were carefully approached to produce a simple unit that allows its operator the ability to search for and locate lost, missing and unseen objects from a distance.”

What follows is a “scientific” explanation of how the tracker works. It is a wonderful explanation indeed: perfectly legitimate scientific terms are stirred together to form a stew that sounds like an real explanation to any persons without a few courses in Electricity and Magnetism under their belts. We are first told that all matter contains positive charges. An indisputable fact. Then we are told that all living beings also contain positive charges — as though living beings are not included under “all matter” and so must be treated separately.

The remainder of the explanation appears to be based on the fact that charged bodies produce magnetic fields when they are in motion. We then find that “Since all matter contains positive charges, when a magnetic field is created by a contained electrically charged body moving through space at a perpendicular angle to its direction, and that magnetic field is brought into alignment with another magnetic field, resonating at the identical frequency modulation, then both objects carry positive charges and repulsion occurs.”

How can I count the ways of error in this one sentence? Though it sounds wonderfully erudite, it totally neglects telling us that normal objects carry as many negative charges as there are positive charges. Therefore normal objects are electrically neutral and do not produce magnetic fields when in motion. (If there were only positive charges, the electrostatic repulsion between objects would be far greater than any magnetic effects due to their motion.) Scientific amateurism and pretentiousness are displayed by the use of “frequency modulation” when “frequency” alone would suffice, if the field were indeed alternating.

For this hypothetical alternation no reason is given.

I will not belabor you with further excerpts from this wonderful theory, except to note that it is clearly concocted by analogy with magnetic resonance imaging methods. A small bibliography at the end includes references to such scholarly works as Physics the Easy Way, and Electrons at Work, published by McGraw-Hill in 1933. I suspect that our inventor studied from these books when in high school, sixty years ago, and still considers them the latest thing.

Magnetic fields are much in vogue these days. Fix your eyes on this advertisement contained in a mail-order catalog emanating from DAMARK International, Inc., a company that sells computers, electronics, and appliances. While trying to sell me a radio-controlled submarine as well as a personal shiatsu massager, they also sneak in an ad for a pair of Magnetizer Foot Strips, selling for $19.99 per pair. These strips fit into the soles of your shoes, and when you wear them the magnetic fields they generate induce current into iron-rich blood creating heat that soothes pain and swelling, while the attractive force of the magnet improves circulation. (Gee, those magnetic fields I felt while working around stellarators in Princeton must have been really good for me. Maybe I should get a magnet and rub it over my sciatic nerve. It’s really been a pain.)

But all good things come to an end. DAMARK says they may be forced to stop mailing me their catalogs if I haven't placed an order recently. Funny, I don’t recall ever placing an order with them. (Maybe they are descended from DAK Products, from whom I bought a computer several years ago.)

Another press release featuring an article by Jane Heimlich, wife of the Heimlich maneuver inventor, touts magnetic cures of all kinds, particularly aches and pains of arthritis and injuries. We are told that negative magnetic energy arrests the growth of tumors, whereas positive magnetic energy accelerates tumor growth. We are told that these beneficial results only come from the use of “unipole” magnets, which are flat plate magnets with magnetic poles on opposite sides. Ordinary magnets (such as those you use on the refrigerator) have opposite poles on the same sides. Which ain't the way I learned it.

Jim Townsend, of Fullerton, California, sells a variety of magnets to fit various parts of the body. His insoles sell for twice the price of DAMARK’s. They must be better.

For several decades now members of the scientific establishment have nervously bemoaned the fact that this nation is rapidly running out of scientists and engineers and that there is an ever-increasing gap between the scientifically literate and the mass of the American citizenry. While many have suggested all sorts of broad-based strategies and techniques to remedy this alleged disaster, and to keep the nation abreast of other countries who seem to be getting ahead of us in science education, few have managed to come up with workable plans for solving the problem. It is therefore refreshing to encounter an eminent scientist who not only argues persuasively that we as a nation are much better off than we heretofore thought, but that it is unrealistic to assume that we will ever be able to educate the public science-wise. Also, that we are foolish if we believe that we will, through some sort of educational magic, make physicists, chemists, mathematicians, economists, psychologists, biologists, etc. out of the average man, woman, and child.

The dispenser of this sobering wisdom is Morris H. Shamos, professor emeritus of physics at New York University, who also says the last thing we need to produce are “clones like ourselves”, i.e., scientists who have the same values, techniques, methods, and outlook that we have. Our present system, Shamos argues, is producing sufficient numbers of clones in all the hard and “soft” sciences to take care of our immediate and foreseeable needs well into the next century. What we do need, however, are scientific generalists who are good communicators and who are able to get the general public to feel comfortable with science.

Shamos argues that the current reform movement is badly flawed and is not making progress. Not only have we failed to set any reasonable or agreed upon standards for scientific literacy, we have also failed to set forth any guidelines for the ways and means of achieving such standards. Moreover, we have failed to specify how such improvments would benefit our society more than literacy in other disciplines such as law, political science, psychology or sociology. Why science is so much more valuable and necessary must be carefully spelled out and justified to the satisfaction of everyone in our society. This can be done, Shamos insists, if we help the public gain confidence in what scientists do by providing access to responsible expert advice and cleaning our house of the large number of fringe experts and their junk science. We must very carefully select and use our best people as technical advisors on matters of public policy and they must spell out very clearly what the proposed scientific action means and how it impacts the social body — especially its moral and political aspects. Like we have done in the field of law, we would be wise to establish a scientific “supreme court,”as Authur Kantrowitz proposed a quarter-century ago, to resolve significant disagreements. This court would function in a manner similar to a legal court by studying and cross examining proponents on both sides of important science issues. Quickly eliminated would be the “junk science” that Peter Huber so eloquently described in his book Galileo’s Revenge.

Shamos also proposes the establishment of a National Science Watch Committee to oversee our scientific educational efforts. How should it be structured so that it would gain and hold the public’s trust? The schools cannot do this alone. We must communicate to the public that becoming interested in and informed about science issues is in their own best and personal interest. Learning about AIDS and breast cancer causes are good examples.

Shamos is the first to admit that he is not in possession of all the answers but believes we had best be getting started in the direction of achievable progress. Anyone concerned with science education should begin immediately to teach:

• An appreciation and awareness of the scientific approach to problems not primarily for content;
• The realization that technology is a practical imperative for our personal health and safety;
• A greater use of exports who can help develop a broad scientific literacy.

Shamos also recommends the setting up of a curriculum guide for scientific awareness. This guide would focus specifically on such things as:

• The purpose of science;
• The purpose of technology;
• Why both science and technology are necessary;
• The meaning of scientific “facts”;
• The meaning of scientific “truths”;
• The role of theory in science;
• The role of conceptual schemes in science;
• The role of experiment in science;
• The role of mathematics in science;
• The complemetary roles of science and technology;
• The history of science especially technology;
• The cumulative nature of science;
• The horizons of science — its potential and limitations;
• The threat of anti-science and science counter-culture movements;
• The societal impact of science and technology;
• The roles of statistics in science in decision-making;
• The proper use of expert science advice.

All of the above subjects would be taught not to emphasize the content but rather to stress the nature of the scientific enterprise. This, Shamos believes, is the sort of understanding of science that we want the educated public to be aware of — they need to better understand the “why”, “what” and “how” of scientific endeavor. These, Shamos stresses, will be absorbed and retained whereas a hodge-podge of isolated facts will not.

There is little doubt that Shamos has his finger on the problem, and it is apparent that this lack of awareness and understanding of the issues listed above underlies many of the present misconceptions about science found at the public level as well in our colleges and universities.

If we ever hope to deal effectively with the serious problem of antiscience in academia, as set forth by Gross and Levitt in their recent work Higher Superstition, we must take a stance toward the problem along the lines that Shamos suggests. What Shamos is proposing is one of the most promising and more implemetable ideas we have encountered in several decades. It is also important to note that I have only skimmed the surface of the very deep, well-written, long and carefully developed thesis. Anyone and everyone concerned with science education should read Shamos if he or she desires to be fully informed about the problem.