he read an article in 1959 in a small magazine and was fascinated by the subject. it covered things like a surgeon s photograph and other people s eyewitness testimony. the 1930s and 40s saw a surge in apparent loch ness monster sightings. including this one by malcolm irvine. dinsdale went to find it. he got a sequence of film. on his fourth day at the lake, tim captures what thousands before and since have tried and failed to film. he described it as for all well being like the back of an african buffalo. same color tone. quite a large object. it was seven feet wide, seven feet out of the water with a sort of reddish brown hide. and as he watched this thing, it suddenly took off.
the 1930s and 40s saw a surge in apparent loch ness monster sightings. including this one by malcolm irvine. dinsdale went to find it. he got a sequence of film. on his fourth day at the lake, tim captures what thousands before and since have tried and failed to film. he described it as for all well being like the back of an african buffalo. same color tone. quite a large object. it was seven feet wide, seven feet out of the water with a sort of reddish brown hide. and as he watched this thing, it suddenly took off. then he remembered why he was there. then he started filming. is this the elusive loch ness monster finally caught on camera? well, that s the perennial question, isn t it?
quite a large object. it was seven feet wide, seven feet out of the water with a sort of reddish brown hide. and as he watched this thing, it suddenly took off. then he remembered why he was there. then he started filming. is this the elusive loch ness monster finally caught on camera? well, that s the perennial question, isn t it? he really didn t know what it was he d filmed. for 50 years this grainy, 62-second film has captivated the world. it was analyzed by the royal air force in 1965. they measured the object you can see in the film. and they say it s six feet wide across, five feet high out of the water. it moves up to ten miles per hour. as it s moving it gets lower in the water. their assessment is it s not a boat, not a submarine. so it must be some form of
picture. but tell us what you have gleaned from what they ve released so far. well, what the report versus said so far, reddish brown stains, which we don t know if it s the product of somebody trying to clean up or they re actually pure in the state they were deposited. we don t know if it s blood, we don t know if it s human blood. they don t specify they had any presumptive tests. so what we do know is if the reddish brown stains in the bedroom are, in fact, the child s and the reddish brown stains in the trunk are, in fact, the child s, and they re connected but either way, if they are really blood and they re connected in any way to be the same blood in the room as in the trunk, you have a nexus there that kind of in my mind eliminates a stranger kidnapping abduction. megyn: because the family was home, so something happened inside the home overnight. it s tough to believe that the family heard nothing and had nothing to do with it. is that where you re going
with it? well, i think we have not heard anything from the window location, whether it was an inagrees or egress, what that gleaned as evidence. certainly if they had one hair or a shoe print, they would know if it s a man, the race, the sex of the individual, from a mito mitochondrial dna. if it is in fact the stain of the girl and her blood and a vehicle that s in an operative condition with the same evidence, with the same basic time frame of deposit, then you have a problem. because a stranger wouldn t use that location as a hiding or a staging location for a body, whether they re alive or dead. megyn: now, there was this car in front of the house that was just a car that was frequently seen there that did not run. they also seized a shower curtain which had a reddish brown substance on it, as well as pillows from a car.