No. 41: Sep-Oct 1985
The continuing saga of the purportedly retouched photo of the flipper of the Loch Ness monster chalked up another episode in the Summer issue of the Skeptical Inquirer. First, there is a response by Robert Rines to the debunking article by Razdan and Kielar in the preceding Winter issue, in which the charge is made that retouching had taken place. This is followed by a reply by Razdan and Kielar. To top it all off, there is a nasty letter printed later on about the Academy of Applied Science, of which Rines is a member. With all the charges and countercharges, it is impossible to tell whether or not the flipper photograph was "subjectively" enhanced or not.
(Rines, Robert; "Loch Ness Reanalysis: Rines Responds," Skeptical Inquirer, 9:382, 1985. Razdan, Rikki. Also: Kielar, Alan; "Loch Ness Reanalysis: Authors Reply," Skeptical Inquirer, 9:387, 1985.)
Comment. The whole business is now as murky as Loch Ness itself. The use of obfuscation and character assassination is common in the anomaly business.