There is a phenomenon peculiar to long and deep narrow lakes used by heavy vessels. All sizeable vessels create a wakes in deep water if travelling at a constant speed. Firstly a disturbance created by the screw propellers, trailing in line behind the vessel. Secondly a wake created by the bows, spreading out both sides at a particular angle. This is known as the Kelvin wake and is always at an angle to the direction of the vessel of 19.5 degrees. Below I show an example of Kelvin wakes and, below that, how the ripples in the wake can appear from a low angle.

The wavefront of a Kelvin wake is complicated, consisting of a series of waves apparently travelling at an angle to the wake itself. This accounts for the series of peaks in the above photo. They themselves can be mistaken for a ‘monster’.

The above pictures do not show a screw wake but see below: Tim Dinsdale’s picture of what he thought was Nessie. It shows a motor boat, not a large vessel, displaying both Kelvin wakes and a screw wake..

  ​The phenomenon I refer to is that caused by the fact that, in such lakes, particularly if they have steep shores, wakes will be reflected. Loch Ness is a prime example. Reflected Kelvin wakes can then, travelling as if they themselves come from a vessel, interfere with the vessel’s own wakes, even with the screw wake. The result can be what might be called a ‘standing wave’, a wave maintaining its appearance, appearing to have its own identity and movement as it is continually fed by various wakes. However this phenomenon needs an almost flat calm water surface in what some call ‘Nessie weather’. Nessie appears in calm weather because that is when wake effects can be seen.

Such an explanation has been postulated for Ogopogo, the phenomenon of Lake Okanagan in Canada. In calm conditions a wake may travel a great distance. In fact there is a type of wave called a soliton that travels great distances without losing much energy; it was first noticed on a canal near Edinburgh when a barge stopped suddenly.
     When a water wave reaches shallow water, it breaks when the bottom of the energy system is forced up by the shelving bottom. A large vessel can cause a deep wave disturbance that may not be visible until it is forced to break in shallows. Then a sudden upheaval may occur. Conditions for such upheavals exist at both ends of Loch Ness and in Urquhart Bay.
    One of the major causes of Nessie-like wakes on Loch Ness was British Waterways’ converted ice-breaker tug Scot II, which operated on the Caledonian Canal from 1931. From 1960 to 1991 it carried tourists on cruises according to a strict timetable. It is no longer on the Canal.

There are many reports of ‘standing waves’ (I use inverted commas because this term has a different meaning in physics). On 24 June 1933, a squad of workmen engaged on blasting operations near Abriachan on the north shore of Loch Ness were startled to see what they took to be the ‘monster’ going up the centre of the lake in the wake of a passing drifter. They said it had an ‘enormous head and a large heavy body’.
        Alex Campbell, the man who started the Nessie legend, was out rowing in his boat opposite the Horseshoe (Scree) on a ‘beautiful’ (calm?) summer day in 1955 or 1956 when the boat suddenly started to heave underneath him. He was terrified. The boat seemed to rise and then stagger back almost immediately.
       In 1926, Simon Cameron was watching two gulls skimming the surface near Cherry Island when the gulls suddenly rose screaming into the air. Then something like a large upturned boat rose from the depths with water cascading down its sides. Just as suddenly, it sank out of sight. At about 8.15 p.m. on 22 July 1930, three young anglers (one was Ian Milne who later kept a gunsmith's shop in Inverness) were fishing in a dead calm of Tor Point near Dores when they heard a great noise and saw much commotion in the water about 600 metres away down the lake (southwards). This commotion, throwing spray up into the air, advanced to within 300 metres of their boat and then seemed to turn aside into the bay above Dores. Their boat rocked violently as a 75 cm-high wave passed. They claimed that, although they detected a wriggling motion, the wash hid the ‘creature’ from view. Milne stated that the object travelled at a speed of 7 metres per second with an undulating motion; he compared it to an enormous conger eel and was sure that it was neither a seal nor an otter.

         Colonel Patrick Grant was driving north out of Fort Augustus, past Cherry Island, at about midday on 13 November 1951, when he saw a great disturbance in the water about 150 metres from the shore. About 2 metres of some black object was showing about 30 centimetres out of the water, but as he looked, it disappeared only to reappear a moment later at least 100 metres away and nearer the shore. The speed of movement was very great.
        Just before his retirement, Alex Campbell claimed to have seen Nessie as he was passing Cherry Island. He saw just one hump about 2.4 metres long and half as high that ‘shot off’ to the other side of the lake at a great speed, leaving a large wash.
        On 31 August 1979, Muriel Clark and Isobel MacLeod were passing Temple Pier when they noticed a man studying the water through binoculars. On looking across to the Bay, they saw a large disturbance on the surface; huge waves were crashing towards the road. As they stopped the car and got out, they saw ‘a huge head’ and what looked like the coil of a snake, and, below the waterline, the outline of a huge body. They thought that the ‘head’ was flat and parallel to the water, large and snake-like. In only a few seconds, the phenomenon disappeared, going down ‘like a sub-marine'. This was about 4 pm.

Complications set in when two wakes intersect; even though the individual wakes may not have been very obvious, when they cross constructive interference can cause an obvious hump of water that will move in a direction different from that of either wake, appearing to make its own wake. Such a hump, after appearing to remain stationary for some time, can suddenly leap forward across the water, giving the impression of a bow wave and following wake. Very impressive ‘monsters’ with one or more humps can be formed and the effect can occur up to half an hour after a boat had passed. In spite of regular traffic through Loch Ness, it was rare enough to take even the most experienced observers by surprise.

British Waterways’ Chief Engineer in Scotland (R B Davenport) had seen Nessie-like
wave interference effects on Loch Ness. He noticed that an ‘eruption of humps’ occurred when the outgoing wake of a craft intersected the return wake when the craft turned. It could also occur when the wakes of two different craft, travelling in opposite directions, met. A vessel’s stern wave also causes a ‘trail of obedient humps which seem to be towed by the vessel’. Where the shore of Loch Ness is steep, an incoming wake can he reflected back out again, perhaps modulating an incoming wake, ‘carving it up in a smooth and regular manner’. Two reflections from each shore can converge a long way behind a boat to form ‘what looks for all the world like the disturbance caused by a partially submerged creature swimming in a straight line’. He also noted that a similar effect was produced close inshore when the shore-reflected bow waves intersects with the incoming stern wave from a large boat. They may be stationary or moving, and they may not appear until the vessel that caused them is out of sight. On one occasion, he saw a steamer’s wash, when it reached the opposite shore, produce an animal-like brown and glistening hump with foam at one end like a lashing tail.
​
       D Mackenzie of Balnain recalled how, when he was on a rock above Abriachan in October of 1871 or 1872, he saw what he took to be a log of wood coming across the lake. The water was very calm. Instead of going towards the river, as he expected, in the middle it suddenly came to life, looking exactly like an upturned boat, and went at great speed, wriggling and churning up the water, towards Urquhart Castle. He was sure that it was an animal of some sort.
    On 24 June 1933, a squad of workmen engaged on blasting operations near Abriachan were startled to see Nessie going up the centre of the lake in the wake of a passing drifter. It had an ‘enormous head’ and a large heavy body.
   On 24 August 1933, three witnesses on the Foyers–Dores road noticed a disturbance on the surface of a very calm Loch Ness just opposite them and a little over half-way across. The disturbance was some 500 metres astern of a drifter steaming towards Inverness. However, since there was calm water between the drifter and the disturbance, they concluded that it could not be the wake. There were several humps in line, rising and falling with a slightly undulating motion, suggesting a caterpillar. The number of humps and their relative size varied, but they maintained the same speed as that drifter. The humps appeared to create their own wake. Later, because they thought they saw it going in the opposite direction, the witnesses concluded that Nessie had turned around underwater. The drifter was later identified as the Grant Hay, none of whose crew saw the disturbance.
     On 20 October that same year, in calm, Scot II was towing, about 73 metres astern, a big steel barge (Muriel) from Fort Augustus to Inverness. About 5 kilometres up Loch Ness, when they were travelling at about 5 metres per second, engineer Robert MacConnell noticed a wave-like mound of water moving out from the side of the lake until it came in line behind Muriel. It then followed the boats until MacConnell shouted to the men on Muriel, when it sheared away and disappeared. The ‘mound’ was estimated to be about 2.5 metres long and half a metres high.
       About 30 August 1938, on a calm L Ness, the steam tug Arrow was on her maiden voyage from Leith to Manchester when the captain (Brodie) and mate (Rich) noticed a huge black ‘animal’ rather like a hump-backed whale emerge on the surface and keep pace with the ship at some distance. The object had two distinct humps, one behind the other, but after a brief disappearance it reappeared with seven humps or coils and tore past the tug ‘at a terrific speed’, leaving large waves.
      At 3.15 pm. on 13 August 1960, the Revd W L Dobb and his family had just finished a late lunch at an unknown location beside Loch Ness when they saw large waves moving along on a dead calm surface. It was just as if a motorboat was ploughing through the water, but no boat could be seen. A few seconds later, they all saw a large black hump in the middle of the waves, but it quickly disappeared, only to be replaced by two humps.
      On the evening of 22 June 1993 near Dores, a ‘long neck and head’ was seen moving about in the water. Edna MacInnes (25) was with her friend David Mackay and her 16-month-old son Arron on the A82 near Abriachan on the other side of the lake. After watching it for about 10 minutes, they drove around to Dores to get a better look. To their surprise the object was still there. ‘We followed it for about 300 feet [91 m]. There was a terrific wake behind it, then suddenly it dived deep with such a splash and disturbance to the calm waters that we had to jump back from the shore to stop getting soaked by its wake’. The object was also seen by James Macintosh and his 13-year-old son James, already at Dores.
       This report is similar to that made by …… Cameron, reported by Andy Owens on 7 November in The Skeptic. On that occasion, there would have been a ship or boat
movement further down the lake, probably unseen by Mr Cameron and his companion. The water surface must have been calm.

The seminary report of a monster in Loch Ness appears to have had the same cause. In March 1933, John Mackay and wife, then tenants of the Drumnadrochit Hotel, were driving along the old narrow road near the seven-mile stone, opposite Aldourie Castle at the very northern tip of the lake. Suddenly, Mrs Mackay shouted to her husband to stop and look at an enormous black body rolling up and down. By the time he had stopped the car, all he could see were ripples, but he knew that something ‘big’ was out there, ‘about a mile and a half [2.5 km] away’ (in fact at that point the lake is only about 1 km wide). Mrs Mackay caught sight of a violent commotion in the mirror-like surface (sic) about 100 m from the shore. The commotion subsided and a big wake became visible, apparently caused by something large moving along just below the surface. This wake went away across the water towards Aldourie Pier. Then, about half way (some 450 m), the cause of the wake emerged, showing as two black humps moving in line, the rear one somewhat larger. They moved forward in a rolling motion like whales or porpoises, but no fins were visible. They rose and sank in an undulating manner. After some time, the object turned sharply to port and, after describing a half circle, sank suddenly with considerable commotion.
    This report was reported by water bailiff Alex Campbell to the local Inverness Courier where the editor coined the word ‘monster’ to describe it and the myth was born.

There are even some photographs which appear to show this phenomenon. On 23 October 1958, The Weekly Scotsman, published a photograph (see below) and an account sent in by Peter A MacNab, an Ayrshire councillor and bank manager. He took the picture on 29 July 1955 and explained the delay as being due to ‘diffidence and fear of ridicule’. He wrote:
I was returning from a holiday in the north with my son and pulled the car up on the road just above Urquhart Castle. It was a calm, warm hazy afternoon. I was all ready to take a shot of Urquhart Castle when my attention was held by a movement in the calm water over to the left. Naturally I thought of the ‘Monster’ and hurriedly changed over the standard lens of my Exacta (127) camera to a six-inch [150 mm] telephoto. As I was doing so, a quick glance showed that some black or dark enormous water creature was cruising on the surface. Without a tripod and in a great hurry, I took the shot. I also took a very quick shot with another camera, a fixed-focus Kodak, before the creature submerged. My son was busy under the bonnet of the car at the time and when he looked in response to my shouts, there were just ripples on the water. Several cars and a bus stopped, but they could see nothing and listened to my description with patent disbelief.

The likely cause was British Waterways’ converted ice-breaker tug Scot II. It always travelled from Inverness to Drumnadrochit and turned in Urquhart Bay.

There are also sketches by eyewitnesses. See the following, which was published in The Scotsman on 13 July 1960. There must have been a vessel travelling north ahead to create the ‘standing wave’.

Below is a sketch made by art teacher Alistair Boyd of what he thought was Nessie in
Urquhart Bay about 4:15 pm on 30 July 1979. The view is from above Temple Pier.

​He and his wife noticed a small dark shape appear and disappear three times very quickly. It moved into the Bay about 150 metres from the shore then seemed to churn about in a left turn and surface a little further away looking like the top of a huge tyre inner tube. It was visible for about 5 seconds. About 4 pm Scot II would have been in the Bay, turning for its return to Inverness.

It is understandable that, to people who are not aware of this wave phenomenon, such a sight would be interpreted to be convincing evidence of the existence of Nessie. Lacking knowledge the human brain comes to the best conclusion known and can create features to make the image fit with preconceptions. The phenomenon is probably responsible for the majority of Nessie reports. It should be more widely known, especially by sceptics.

Most of the eyewitness reports above are from my book The Loch Ness Monster: The
Evidence , last published in 2002 by Birlinn. It is now out-of-print but some copies are
available on the internet.

​An unofficial account of the Armistice negotiations
by Commander W T Bagot RN
8-11 November 1918
________________________________________
On Thursday 7th November 1918, the British Mission, consisting of Admiral Wemyss (C. N. S.), Admiral Hope (D. 1st.. S. L.), Captain Marriott, R. N. (Naval Assistant to C. N. S.) and myself, arrived at the Hotel Meurice in Paris where we were the guests of the French Government. That afternoon, the Mission left in cars for Senlis, where the C. N. S. visited MARSHAL FOCH’S headquarters. Subsequently the Mission had tea at the headquarters of the British Military Liaison Officer. These headquarters are situated in a fine chateau near to Senlis, standing in large grounds containing among other things a racing stable and training track. About 5.30 p.m. the Mission again left by car and boarded MARSHALL FOCH’S train at Senlis station. As the British Mission was living in it for three days a few details of the train may be of interest. It consists of some seven or eight coaches of which two were sleeping cars providing cabin accommodation for the British and French officers, one coach containing an office and conference room, one coach forming MARSHALL FOCH’S quarters, a dining car, and two or three coaches containing men’s quarters, dynamo, telephone exchange, etc. This train has been used constantly by MARSHALL FOCH during the war for travelling about to various parts of the Front
     The thing that struck one was the fact that MARSHALL FOCH appeared to run the War with the assistance of only 5 officers. These were the Chief of Staff, (GENERAL WEYGAND), two staff officers and two officers who acted as secretaries and interpreters. He was of course in constant tough by telephone and courier with his headquarters at Senlis, but this was also a comparably modest establishment.
     MARSHALL FOCH’s train arrived at some old heavy gun sidings in the middle of the Forest of Compiegne about 7 p.m. and remained there during the whole of the negotiations except for occasional trips to Compiegne station to take in water etc. The German Mission through delay in crossing the fighting front did not arrive until the early hours of Friday morning. The Germans were also accommodated in a train similar to Foch’s and this was placed on another set of rails about 100 yards away, a line of duckboards leading from one to the other.
     The weather which during the week had been wet and misty cleared over night and Friday 8th Nov. the first day of the conference proved to be a bright sunny day, which showed to full advantage the rural setting of the whole scene. Looking from Foch’s train there was nothing to be seen but trees and the little woodfires of the sentries posted round to keep away the curious, particularly from the German train, visible through the wood a short way away. Another line of duck boards ran in the opposite direction to the main road to Compiegne. About a quarter of a mile away lies the village of Francport on the Aisne. Close by lies the Chateau de Francport, erroneously reported in the press as the place where the conference was held.
     On the arrival of the train containing the German delegates, Marshall FOCH had sent over a staff officer to say that he would receive them at 9 o’clock. So, punctually to the time the German Mission was seen advancing in single file across the duckboards. Leading the procession was ERZBERGER, next came OBERNDORF and General WINTERFELD and finally Captain von VANSELOW, the naval delegate. There were also two junior military officers acting as interpreters. Personal descriptions of the delegates will be found at the end of this report. They all walked very slowly and manifested a certain limpness about the knee-joints. The officers were in uniform and wore a form of sword-bayonet, except the naval officer who wore a dirk. The civilians were in well worn dark blue suits. None of the delegates could have been described as smart.
     On arrival at Foch’s train they were shown into the coach containing the office, a part of which was arranged as a conference room. General WEYGAND then announced their arrival to Marshall FOCH, who immediately afterwards entered accompanied by Admiral WEMYSS.

The French and British officers present were:
Marshal FOCH
General WEYGAND, Chief of Staff
Lieut. LAPERCHE, Interpreter
Admiral Sir Rosslyn WEMYSS. C. N. S.
Admiral G. P. W. Hope, D. I. S. L.
Capt. J. R. P. MARRIOTT, R. N.,Naval Assistant to
Commander W. T. BAGOT, Interpreter

The German Delegates were:
ERZBERGER, Chef de Mission
Count von OBERNDORF
General von WINTERFELD
Kapitain z.See VANSELOW
Hauptmann (Capt.) GEYER )
Rittmeister (Capt.) von HELLDORF  )  Interpreters.
 
The proceedings were opened by Marshal FOCH, asking the German delegates what was the object of their visit, to which ERZBERGER replied that they had come to hear “proposals for an Armistice on land, at sea, in the air and in the colonies.” To this FOCH replied “I have no proposals to make”. Count OBERNDORF then produced from his pocket a paper and read an extract from one of Mr. WILSON’s statements. FOCH then stated that they could hear the terms if they wished to have an Armistice, and that these were the terms of the Allied and Associated Powers. The Germans then decided to hear these terms. Before proceeding with the conference, ERZBERGER handed over his credentials. Marshal FOCH, Admiral WEMYSS and General WEYGAND then retired to examine them. The credentials having been found in order, Marshal FOCH and the other officers returned and requested ERZBERGER to introduce the members of his mission. After this had been done Marshal FOCH introduced the French and British delegates.
     The Germans, having decided to hear the terms, General WEYGAND began the reading of the principle articles of the Terms of Armistice. The French interpreter translated each article into German as it was read. The proceedings were conducted in French. That is to say, the French and British delegates used the French language throughout. ERZBERGER spoke only in German, although he appeared to know enough French to be able to follow. General WINTERFELD and Count OBERDORF however spoke French. Captain VANSELOW played only a very small part in the proceedings, but appeared to know French. When the reading of the terms had been completed, by which time the Germans looked rather dejected, the question of communicating the terms to the German Government arose. Marshal FOCH offered to assist them in every way with wireless and other means. He stipulated however that the terms of the Armistice must be sent in cypher if communicated by W/T. As the Germans had not brought a cypher with them, it was arranged that Captain HELLDORF should be sent to the German Headquarters in Spa with a copy of the terms. The Germans then asked to be furnished with a certified translation of the French text, but were told that no translation was available. A request was now put forward by the German delegates for an immediate cessation of hostilities so as to avoid useless bloodshed. General WINTERFELD was the spokesman on this occasion and whilst he was explaining the desirability of immediately stopping all fighting, referred to the “rout” of the German army (“la deroute” was the French word actually used) and the useless bloodshed entailed if this continued until the conference had finished its deliberations. This remark would appear to form a fair index to the state of mind of the German delegates at that time. Marshal FOCH informed them that no cessation of hostilities could take place until the terms already read had been accepted and signed.
     A plain language message was then sent at the request of General WINTERFELD informing the German Government that the first sitting had been held and that his request for an immediate cessation of hostilities had been refused.
This ended the first sitting and the Germans then retired with a copy of the terms to their own train, the proceedings having lasted about an hour and a half.
     About lunch time Capt. HELLENDORF carrying the terms of the Armistice departed in tears (so it was reported) for the German Headquarters at Spa. Later in the day various German delegates arrived over to discuss the details of the terms with the French and British delegates. About 4 p.m. Captain VANSELOW, the German Naval delegate, came over and was received by Admiral HOPE, Captain MARRIOTT and myself. He stated he proposed to discuss the terms with us, so that, in the event of the Armistice being concluded, it would save time if the details were arranged beforehand, but that it must be understood that nothing he said could be taken as implying that they intended to accept the terms. It may of interest to record briefly some of the views he expressed. With regard to Article XX of the naval conditions which provides for the immediate cessation of all hostilities at sea and the furnishing of information as to the whereabouts all German ships, he enquired whether we would undertake not to use such information to attack German ships. He was assured that that was out of the question as the terms of the Armistice provided for the cessation of all hostilities. In connection with the surrender of surface ships he stated that the “MACKENSEN” was at least 10 months off completion and that consequently only 5 Battle Cruisers could be surrendered. He also said that all work on new construction had ceased some time ago. As regards destroyers he remarked that the number 50 asked for was too high as nothing like that could be got ready. Although the Germans had many more than this number on paper, the wear and tear of machinery and craft in general had been so great that it would be difficult to find 50 boats sufficiently seaworthy to send over at once. The next complaint concerned the continuation of the blockade provided for in Article XXVI. According to the German view the continuation of the blockade was not in accordance with the conception of the term “Armistice;” therefore the blockade ought to be raised so as to allow Germany revictualling with her own ships. He said that Germany was in a very bad way and that the continuation of the blockade would mean sickness and famine, more especially as the returning army would have to abandon a large part of its supplies. He also complained bitterly about the effect of the blacklist and hoped that it would be abolished. As a concession on this point, the last sentence stating that the Allies contemplated revictualling of Germany was eventually added to Article XXVI.
     The meeting lasted about an hour and then Captain VANSELOW returned to the German train.
      On Saturday morning there being no conference on, the British delegates took the opportunity to motor over to Soissons to see the damage done to this town by enemy bombardment. On arrival the French officer accompanying the party was lucky enough to find an officer who had recently conducted the French President over the town. The latter took the party round, who were thus enabled to see all the points of interest. The British delegates arrived back at the train about 12 o’clock to find that there was no prospect of any further conference that afternoon, so after lunch, the time was spent exploring the grounds of the neighbouring chateau of Francport. Late in the afternoon, the Germans sent over their reply to the terms of the Armistice, or rather a reasoned paper requesting certain modifications to the terms, arising mainly from technical difficulties to carry them out. This paper contained also remarks about the naval terms by Capt. VANSELOW and an exposition of the views he had expressed during the afternoon meeting on Friday. After dinner these remarks were considered by the British delegates.
     Sunday was a busy day, commencing about 9 a.m. with a conference with Captain VANSELOW, during which the various points raised by him in the above mentioned paper were discussed. The procedure was to go into all the details, to discuss these and the various difficulties arising, but to leave them over for ultimate decision at the final conference with all the delegates. An interesting point arose at this conference. The question was whether Germany under the then existing political situation would be in a position to carry out the terms of the Armistice, more especially the surrender of the ships. Captain VANSELOW was of [the] opinion that although the Kaiser and the Crown Prince had renounced their claims to the throne (information which the Germans had obtained from the French Sunday newspapers sent over to their train, and that there had been some disturbances, speaking generally it would be possible for the German Government, whichever party [were] in power, to carry out the conditions. He could not, however, be certain that mutinous elements in various ships might not damage or destroy their vessels. It was then suggested that we might have to occupy Heligoland to enforce the terms. Captain VANSELOW did not, however, think that this would be necessary.
     Various points regarding the surrender of ships were then discussed and the meeting rose shortly before lunch.
     On Sunday evening a plain language W/T message addressed to the German delegates was received instructing them to sign the Armistice, but to add a declaration regarding the danger of a spread of Bolshevism in Germany if the provisioning of that country were not undertaken by the Allies.
    During the night several further meetings between the French and German delegates took place and also a further meeting with Captain VANSELOW. The latter stated that he had just seen the revised terms and desired to thank us for having altered the condition regarding von LETTOW in East Africa from “surrender” to “evacuation”. The next matter concerned the occupation of Heligoland, if it should be necessary to ensure the surrender of German warships. Captain VANSELOW said that this could not be included in the terms without first consulting the German Government, as otherwise he might be tried for high treason on his return for having surrendered German territory. As it would however have taken some time to obtain the concurrence of the German Government it was decided to attach the Heligoland stipulation to the terms as an annexure stating that the German delegates would transmit this stipulation to the German Chancellor with a recommendation that it should be accepted, adding the reasons for this demand on the part of the Allies.
Finally, about 2 a.m. the German delegates arrived for the final conference. From the above-mentioned telegram the outcome of the conference was a foregone conclusion, and the Germans were not a little annoyed that the instruction to sign and been sent in plain language. At least, this was the impression gathered from some remarks of VANSELOW’s during the preceding meetings. It could equally well have been sent in cypher as two Naval coders with the necessary books had arrived on Friday night making communication by cipher possible, and incidentally a number of cipher messages were received by the Germans.
     The final conference then commenced its deliberations at about 2 a.m. on Monday the 11th of November. The procedure was for General WEYGAND to read out the terms, article by article. The French officer interpreter then translated each article into German and then, where necessary, after discussion the final form of the article was decided on. The first point conceded by FOCH was the alteration of the text of Article II to its present form in which Alsace and Lorraine are not termed “occupied territory”. Most of the other points on which on which discussion took place arose from the technical impossibility (according to the Germans) of carrying out the terms. For instance, General WINTERFELD stated that it would not be possible to surrender more than 1700 aeroplanes as this was approximately the total number of machines available, 300 less than the number asked for. The evacuation of the occupied territories was illustrated by a large map showing the lines to be occupied by various dates. This was spread out on the table and formed an annex to the terms.
     When the terms relating to the blockade came up for consideration,  ERZBERGER tried to soften the hearts of the British and French delegates by telling them that owing to the food shortage large numbers of their women and children had died during the influenza epidemic. It was quite apparent that the blockade coupled with the black-list had hit them very hard. The black-list and the various measures connected therewith they referred to as “the blockade on shore”; VANSELOW remarked that they had only undertaken the submarine war as a counterstroke to this shore blockade.
     When the reading of the terms had been completed, ERZBERGER rose and read out a declaration in German. In this he stated that the German Government would do everything in its power to carry out the terms. The German plenipotentiaries however desired to point out that some of the terms were so harsh as to be likely to bring about a state of anarchy and famine in Germany.
     The proceedings came to an end about a quarter past five and the Germans were then asked to say whether they would call the hour of signing 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. They chose 5 a.m. French time. The various documents were then signed first by FOCH and WEMYSS and then by the four German delegates. They had agreed to sign without waiting for the amended version arising from the final conference to be typed. So after they returned to their own train, it was some time before the various documents were completed. 
     Orders were then issued for a cessation of hostilities on land and in the air and on the sea at 11 a.m. French time, the 11th November, the duration of the Armistice being 36 days from that hour.
     One would have supposed that on such an occasion there would have been some outward display of emotion on the part of the French officers on the conclusion of the Armistice. Such however was not the case. About 6 a.m. the commandant of the train produced a bottle of port and some biscuits. But it was not until one of the British officers proposed it, that a toast was drunk to the great event.
     Before leaving, the Germans requested the British delegates to meet a food expert and transport officer to discuss the details of revictualling Germany. These however did not arrive, so about 9 a.m. Captain VANSELOW came over. He stated that he did not know much about the subject, but was of opinion that Germany would require about 30,000 tons of edible fats a month, this being her principal need. He was informed that his remarks would be noted.
     At 8.20 a.m. Marshal FOCH and Admiral WEMYSS left for Paris by car to lay the terms of the Armistice before the French Government. The train containing the Germans left at 10 a.m. for the front.
    Admiral HOPE and myself left for Paris about 10.30 a.m. arriving at the Hotel Meurice about half past twelve. At first as we drove through the countryside there was nothing to show that anything unusual had occurred. It was only as the villages nearer Paris were reached that one began to notice signs of excitement. However as soon as the outskirts of Paris were reached it was evident that everybody had heard the good news. Everybody was buying flags and decorating their houses with them, and by lunch time the people of Paris were marching about arm in arm crying “La Victoire! La Victoire!”
     After dinner that night at the Hotel Meurice Admiral WEMYSS was presented by two Canadian officers with a large silk table centre displaying the Allied flags. It turned out later that this was the property of the Hotel! As Admiral WEMYSS rose to leave several French gentlemen at a table a short way off rose intending to call for a speech or to drink his health and called out “Admiral”. The latter had however just passed through the doors of the dining-room and did not hear the shout, consequently nothing came of this intended demonstration. 
     The British delegates left that night by train for Boulogne, crossing to Folkestone next morning (12th November) by destroyer. Thus ended a mission to France fraught with such great consequences to the Allies and indeed to the world at large.

PERSONAL NOTES ON THE GERMAN DELEGATES

Excellence Mattias Erzberger.  Age 43.
     Son of a postman in South Germany. Schoolmaster by profession. Member of the Reichstag centre party. Catholic. Employed in 1914 in propaganda section of F.O.  Lost this post on fall of Bethmann Hollweg in 1917. Led the attack of the majority parties on the Admiralty for making false promises about s/m campaign in July 1917. Proposed and carried the resolution of 18th July 1917 for a peace without annexations or indemnities. In October 1918 appointed Minister without portfolio in Prince Max’s government in which he was the strongest personality. Described as a man of much energy and ability. In confidential relations with the Vatican and Vienna, but not a gentleman. Ludendorf’s first powerful enemy. Of medium height, fat a bloated looking, double chin, scrubby moustache wears pince-nez.

Excellence Graf von Oberndorf,  Age 48. 
     Well born. Doctor of Law. Now holds the rank of Ambassador. Has been through the ordinary diplomatic career, being appointed as Minister at Sofia during the war and remained there until capitulation of Bulgaria. Slight build, medium height. Speaks French fluently.

General Detlef von Winterfeld.  Age 57
     First commission in 1888. Has had very little actual military experience, never having commanded more than a company. Several years Military Attache at Brussels – then returned to General Staff. 1909 to 1914 Military Attache Paris. During the war he has been active in Spain on espionage work. It is stated “He is a kindly chap, very much in earnest, and of average mental calibre. He has the reputation of being a piocheur [?], having collected a good deal of information. Is a fair, though not (except in French) fluent linguist. Is polite and quite without the aggressive manner not seldom found among his colleagues. Has probably a nervous temperament, old for his age”. It is stated by a French officer that Winterfeld’s father was present at Versailles in 1871 at the Peace negotiations.

Captain von Vanselow.  Age 44
     Entered Navy in 1892. Promoted to Captain in April 1917. There is apparently nothing noteworthy in his career. Appears to have served on the Admiral Staff Berlin since 1913. Has been chief of the Military political Department of the Admiral Staff since some time in 1917. Short, stout, and rather subdued, not very prepossessing, not much force of character.

________________________________________
Transcribed with minor edits from the original in the National Archives by Steuart Campbell in 2023
Copyright Steuart Campbell
 ________________________________________
Notes by Steuart Campbell:
1 Commander Walter Theodore Bagot (1885-1969) joined the Royal Navy in 1900 but his seagoing career was ended by short sight. He worked in the Intelligence Division during World War 1 and was a German interpreter. He was awarded the Victory Medal 1914-18.
2 Bagot’s surprise at the small staff with which General Foch operated presumably arose from the large staff with which General Kitchener operated.
3 Surely it’s odd that Foch would say that he had no proposals when he had a draft of the Terms of Armistice ready to present.
4 Count Oberndorf read an extract from a statement by President Wilson, but it’s not clear what that was.
5 The Armistice was determined to take effect at 1100 French time, the 11th November. In fact, French time was GMT as, at the time, France and the UK shared the same time zone. Germany was 1 hour ahead, so there the Armistice took effect at noon. It appears that it was understood that 6 hours were need to allow the cease fire to be circulated to the fighting forces. The actual time for the Armistice therefore depended on the choice of the signing time determined by the German delegates. If they had chosen 6 am, the cease fire would have taken place at noon GMT. 
6 Bagot’s account was transferred to the national Archives on 16 July 1959 and originally closed for 50 years (from 1919). Consequently it was made publicly available on 1 January 1969.


Below: The delegates; Rear Admiral Hope (front right) was part of the British delegation at the Armistice talks

I wrote this as COP26 started in Glasgow. I did not expect anything to emerge from that meeting that will even slow the rise in global warming, let alone stop it. Good intentions but little action. Even if so-called ‘net zero’ (NZ) were achieved, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would still cause the temperature to rise. But NZ will not be achieved. The dire effects outlined by Mark Lynas in his book Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency look likely to occur, no matter what global agreement is reached: overbearing heat and fires everywhere; rising sea level drowning large areas, including many cities; violent weather events and mass migration as people try to escape the worst effects. Civilization could collapse.
    But there is a way to stop the temperature rising if not to stop greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming has two causes: too much greenhouse gas is the atmosphere and heat from the sun. If one cannot reduce the greenhouse gases, perhaps one can reduce insolation. This would not save the oceans from acidification but it would give us more time to get the greenhouse gas emissions down.
   Of course the latter could only be done by some kind of geoengineering, a technical fix to cool the planet. Many methods have been suggested, including sunshades is space. But one man who lives in Edinburgh (Scotland) has a practical solution. He can save civilization!
    I refer to engineer Emeritus Professor Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh. He has taken an idea by John Latham (1990) and developed it, suggesting the deployment of a fleet of special ships that spray fine seawater to create clouds with small droplets (the smaller the droplets the greater the reflectivity of a cloud). This cleverly makes use of Earth’s existing cooling mechanism (clouds), enhancing them to increase the planet’s albedo, reducing the global temperature and with the effect of reducing sea level.
       This idea has been championed by the Centre for Climate Repair in Cambridge, especially Professor Sir David King (one time scientific adviser to the UK Government). See his answers to questions put by Channel 4 News at http://bit.ly/3hJBmT3. Nothing has been heard from him since!        
   There are those who strongly oppose any form of solar geoengineering. The US National Intelligence Council claimed that disputes could arise if countries 'unilaterally test and deploy solar geoengineering' to cool the planet. That is probably true but the failure to deploy it will lead to even greater disputes as countries struggle with the effects of global warming and the mass migration it is likely to create. Which would they prefer? Naturally it should be deployed with international agreement, perhaps via the United Nations Organization.
       At some point the world will realize that nothing they do is effective and that some desperate fix is required. When London, New York and Shanghai, for example, are under water and countries are burning, minds will be changed.          
        Meanwhile Prof Salter has little scientific support and no funding. That is a pity. He can save civilization but who is interested? He was not been invited to speak at COP26 and is ignored.
         
         

A complete explanation for the life of Jesus and the origin of Christianity

The 3rd revised edition of this book has now been published by Tectum Verlag in Germany. Contact them if you want a review copy.

What really happened to Jesus? Did he rise from the dead, and if not why do Christians believe that he did? Did he have a plan and, if so, what was it? Did he accomplish his purpose or did the plan fail? If it failed, what were the consequences?
As a former Christian, I takes a rationalist look at the problem of Christian origins and show that no previous writer has completely solved the riddle of Jesus. My hypothesis explains Jesus' curious behaviour and solves age-long mysteries that no one else had solved. Here is Jesus in historical context, the leader of an obscure Jewish sect which believed that it was fulfilling a divine plan revealed in the Scriptures. This plan required the Messiah to die and rise again to become the king of Israel, throwing the Romans out of Judaea and even replacing the Emperor as ruler of the known world. Read how Jesus expected to accomplish this. Read how his plan failed.
Also read how Christianity began by mistake.

I build on the work of many other authors and construct what must be the true explanation for the origin of Christianity. This should be the last book on Jesus.

I also review of the many attempts to solve the mystery by other sceptical or objective writers.
'Taking up the torch from where Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus left off, Campbell offers a provocative, and what for many will be a deeply disturbing, account of the life, mission, death and "resurrection" of the historical Jesus...[it] is also a good read...it has some of the merits of a good detective story'
                                         Professor James Thrower, University of Aberdeen

ISBN 978-3-8288-4346-2   
ePDF 978-3-8288-7327-8   

Today is Armistice Day, sometimes called ‘Poppy Day’, the anniversary of the end of hostilities in the First World War at 11 am on 11 November 1918.
   From 1919, the UK and all the countries of the Commonwealth held a day of remembrance on 11 November each year to commemorate the contribution of British and Commonwealth military and civilian servicemen and women in the two World Wars and later conflicts.
   At the end of the Second World War In 1945, remembrance was moved to the second Sunday in November nearest to 11 November and renamed ‘Remembrance Sunday’, probably to allow more people to attend and to regularise it. Tomorrow will be Remembrance Sunday.
Since the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in 1995, it has become usual to hold ceremonies on both Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday.
     Some people think there is some spooky significance in the fact that the Armistice took effect at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month. However this is just coincidence.
     In 1918, Germany realised that, for various reasons, not least the fact that the USA had joined in to support the Allies, it was losing the war. The German Navy refused to fight and Germany was short of manpower and supplies and faced imminent invasion. Consequently, the leaders of the German Army told the German government to end the fighting. On 9 November Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated and, two days later, Germany signed the Armistice at Compiègne in Northern France.  Officially the war did not end until the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed on 28 June 1919.
Most treaties instituting a significant alteration in the relationship between countries are set to occur at a significant time, either noon or midnight. India gained its independence at the midnight before 15 August 1947 (6:30 pm in the UK).
      The Armistice was set to take affect at noon (Western European Time) on 11 November 1918 (all the countries involved were using Daylight Saving Time). But that was 11 am in the UK. It was just an accident of time zones that Britain celebrated the Armistice at ‘the eleventh hour’, a phrase that probably comes from Matthew 20:6,9.
     The anniversary of the Armistice is not observed in Germany, although since 1952, it has observed a national day of mourning (Volkstrauertag, a secular public holiday) on the Sunday closest to 16 November. In France and Belgium, 11 November is a national holiday. Many other countries hold similar observance on that day.
     Next year, Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday will coincide on 11 November 2018, the centenary of the Armistice.
                                           .
         

 
 

We live our lives without much thought for the universe of which our planet is a part. We know that we live on a planet in a solar system in which, so far as we know, ours is the only planet with life, certainly intelligent life and we might occasionally consider the wider context: that the Sun and its planets are part of a Galaxy with many billions of stars and that it is only one of billions of galaxies that we can see. But that is beyond our comprehension and we just live for the moment, doing what we like or have to do here on this planet. Daily life takes precedence.
        Sometimes we might consider that, since intelligent beings have evolved on this planet, there might be others on other planets. Some are certain that this is the case and have tried to send signals to likely stars or listened for signals that might be from other advanced technological civilisations. So far, neither has brought a positive result. Some believe that aliens have already visited Earth and see UFO reports as evidence of it.
        This optimism is based on the fact that we exist. If intelligent beings have evolved here then it must be easy for intelligent life to evolve anywhere.
       However, there is a flaw in this presumption. It overlooks the curious circumstances that have led to our evolution. When examined in detail, it emerges that we are an accident. Earth did not plan for our emergence; in fact it has largely been hostile to us and, several times, has threatened to extinguish us. But somehow we survived, being helped by a series of lucky accidents. For details of these lucky accidents, see my article ‘Are we alone?’ at: https://asedinburghjournal.wordpress.com/.
          In an almost infinite (well very big) universe almost anything can happen. This means that even the unusual chapter of accidents that led to our emergence will inevitably occur somewhere. Well, they occurred here and we are the result. This probably means that they have occurred nowhere else, certainly not in our Galaxy and we are the only intelligent beings for a million light years. We may even be alone in the universe. What a responsibility that lays on us: to nurture our civilization and to see that it survives. Being lucky so far does not guarantee that we will always be lucky. There are several catastrophes that could overcome us, leading to our disappearance. We should take steps to see that somehow human life survives to take us out into the universe, to see that no single catastrophe can wipe us out. The universe has been kind enough to allow us to appear so let us make sure that it does not accidentally exterminate us.

The 3rd ed. of my book has now been published by Tectum Verlag in Germany. This is a revised and corrected ed. with a (new) preface. This offers a complete explanation for the life of Jesus and the origin of Christianity. Nothing like this has been published before. No other writer found the secret of Jesus' plan and he carried it out--until it failed at the crucifixion. 

I ask what really happened to Jesus? Did he rise from the dead, and if not why do Christians believe that he did? Did he have a plan and, if so, what was it? Did he accomplish his purpose or did the plan fail? If it failed, what were the consequences? Did Jesus want to be crucifiedf?

​As a former Christian, I take a rationalist look at the problem of Christian origins and shows that no previous writer has completely solved the riddle of Jesus. Here I show a new hypothesis, one that explains Jesus curious behaviour. Here is Jesus in historical context, the leader of an obscure Jewish sect which believed that it was fulfilling a divine plan revealed in the Scriptures. This plan required the Messiah to die and rise again to become the king of Israel, throwing the Romans out of Judaea and even replacing the Emperor as ruler of the known world. Read how Jesus expected to accomplish this. I had to draw on all my Biblical knowledge and also contemporary history of the Jews. I build on the work of many other authors and constructs what is surely the true explanation for the origin of Christianity. This should be the last word on the historical Jesus. In the process review of the many attempts to solve the mystery by other writers and I also correct many misunderstandings about Jesus.

Graffiti, most of it tags by misguided nuisances who want to mark their territory, lowers the tone of an area and encourages more of the same and perhaps other types of crime. For several reasons, therefore, it should be removed as soon as possibly by the owners of the property affected. Since it is a crime, the police should also try to identify the culprits and charge them.
          As a former member of a community council in the south-west of Edinburgh (UK), I have tried over many years to get graffiti removed and also to get local police to investigate. This has not always proved successful.       
          The local council will remove graffiti from their property and I’ve had some success with Openreach and Network Rail. Until February 2016, I had cooperation from Virgin Media’s Cabinet and Plant Maintenance department in Birmingham. They would remove graffiti, mainly by repainting the cabinets in their corporate colour (grey; often the cabinets had previously been painted green).
         Then, on 13 February, responses ceased. I tried emailing Virgin Media’s CEO Tom Mockridge, but got no reply. In desperation, I even emailed Sir Richard Branson, the CEO of the Virgin Group but that also got no response. Eventually, I took to Twitter and tweeted to @virginmedia. This got replies on twitter but no action, even after I had reported 3 examples as a test via Virgin Media’s own website, which recognises graffiti as damage to a cabinet. I was asked to give details of the cabinets affected, but after I did so, nothing changed except one day when I found a workman from the John Henry Group working nearby on one of 4 VM cabinets. Evidently VM contracts some maintenance to this company. He was repairing a lock on one cabinet, but, when asked, said that he would repaint them grey (only one was grey but they all had non-tag graffiti on them). He also knew about some other cabinets in the area that had graffiti on them and were still green. He did indeed paint the cabinets grey but did not touch any others. I concluded that he had not been sent to paint over the graffiti but to mend the lock and that he may have been told to repaint the cabinets while he was there.
          That is how things stand to this day: some VM cabinets grey, some still green, most with graffiti of one sort or another on them. I am unable to get any further action on the matter. Of course, one only knows that these cabinets belong to Virgin Media by their colour or having had them identified in the past. All VM cabinets have a double-pitched top (i.e. not flat, but then so do those of Openreach), but no identification of any sort. Perhaps VM do not care about their public image or hope that no one will associate them with these disgraceful cabinets. They cannot even be bothered to paint all their cabinets the same colour.
          I had no better results with Edinburgh police, who evidently did not want to be bothered with trivial vandalism. One can report the crime via 101 but they always want to know if you saw the graffiti being applied and/or if it is on one’s own property. When they find that that neither apply, they lose interest and just log it. Before the creation of Police Scotland, Lothian & Borders Police used to take more interest, keeping a database of graffiti tags and alerting other officers to the crime. I think in one case, someone was arrested and charged.
          British Transport Police have been more accommodating and do record graffiti. But it had no better results.
          It is all very frustrating and is allowing graffiti artists to get away with their anti-social behaviour.

Addendum
Getting no sense from VM, I spray-painted over graffiti on 5 of their street cabinets in my area. I told them in advance, asking permission, and afterwards. I got no response in either case. 
 

In December 2015, I suggest to the Astronomical Society of Edinburgh, of which I am a member, that I give a short presentation on The Star of Bethlehem (I didn't tell them what I would say about it). This was accepted and I gave the talk on 8 Feb 2016. As a result I was invited to write it up for their online Journal. The article below was the result.

Almost every Christmas an astronomer attempts to explain the Star of Bethlehem. The Sky at Night team did so in their programme broadcast on 2015 Dec 30 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06t3wst). They concluded that it was most likely to have been a comet and showed Giotto’s painting of the Nativity with a comet in the sky (see below):











Other artists portraying the Nativity usually just showed a distant star.

I am a member of the ASE because I am interested in astronomy and cosmology. But I also have an abiding interest in the origin of Christianity and the life of Jesus. This is the result of a youth misspent as a Christian, a religion I abandoned a long time ago. This interest deepened until I found that I could write a book on the subject, which covers all aspects of the gospel story (see http://www.steuartcampbell.com/life-of-jesus-and-the-origin-of-christianity.html). Necessarily the book examines Jesus’ birth and the story of the Star of Bethlehem.

The story comes only from Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 2, as follows (Authorised version):

'Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.  And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.  And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet,...Then Herod, when he had privily [secretly] called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.  And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.  When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.'

Several things about this account should trouble astronomers. Does the account mean that the magi saw the ‘star’ in the east, i.e. rising, and followed it during a night as it travelled west? Or does it just mean that, being in the east themselves (Arabia?), they saw the ‘star’ in the west, over Palestine. If the latter, the ‘star’ would have set before they even came to Jerusalem. It is not clear.
     The question of the time of the appearance of the ‘star’ is also obscure. No answer is given to this question and one wonders how it could be answered. Herod seems to have thought it significant, but we are not told why.
    Most puzzling of all is the idea that the magi could follow the ‘star’ to identify a particular building in Bethlehem. Astronomers especially know that a celestial object or phenomenon cannot be identified with a particular location on the surface of the earth. Perhaps they are ignorant of this account or choose to ignore it as they search for any celestial phenomenon that might explain it. The entire confused account should alert astronomers to the possibility that it is unreliable and that they might not be looking for a real ‘star’.
 
It is important to understand that the two accounts of Jesus birth, one here in Matthew and another incompatible one in Luke’s Gospel are additions to the first Gospel, that of Mark. Both Matthew and Luke, took Mark as their basis and made additions to give Jesus an origin and background commensurate with his later deification and to elevate him the status of a Saviour God at least equal to contemporary such gods. The obvious comparison is with Mithras, the god of the Roman Army. Indeed, Matthew may have borrowed from the Mithraic books, which, it is reported, tell how, when Mithras was born, a star fell from the sky and was followed by Zoroastrian priests called ‘Magi’ on the way to worship him (by the way, Mithras birthday was Dec 25!).
    Neither Mark’s nor John’s Gospel know anything about Jesus’ origin. Biblical scholars believe that the entire Birth Narratives of Matthew and Luke are inventions, for the purpose explained above.
     Matthew in particular, writing for the Jewish community in Alexandria, was at pains to show fulfilment of Jewish prophecy, or at least to show links between Jesus’ origin and the Jewish Scriptures. Consequently he may have borrowed from a Jewish apocryphal book like The Testament of Levi (one of the Jewish patriarchs). In that book, in a description of the last days (18:3), one finds the statement that ‘his star shall arise in heaven as of a king. Lighting up the light of knowledge as the sun the day’. Also, in 24:1, the statement that ‘shall a star arise to you from Jacob in peace’. One can even see forecast of a star in Numbers 24:17 (‘There shall come a star out of Jacob’). In the Old Testament, the word ‘star’ often stood for the Messiah.

Jewish readers would easily see the connection and be persuaded that Jesus really was the Messiah, the point Matthew was trying to convey. I understand that The Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, contains a statement that 'when the Messiah is to be revealed a star will rise in the east...and seven other stars round it will fight on every side'.

It is common knowledge that ancient peoples saw celestial phenomena as signifying or celebrating some important event, such as the birth of a king, on Earth. It is not so obvious, but equally logical, that an important historical Earthly event must somehow have been reflected in the sky. Consequently, even though nothing appeared at the time, such an event was easily invented to convince people that the event described had great significance. Miraculous events were often invented to accompany the births or deaths of Roman Emperors. Such was the case here. Believing that Jesus was the expected Messiah, Matthew invented a celestial event to convince his readers of Jesus’ importance.
 
Astronomers even make a mistake about the date. Our year dating system was invented in 525 by a Scythian monk called Dionysius Exiguus. He based it on the assumed age of Jesus, by then thought to be in Heaven (we still keep to this system which was adopted by Bede in the 8th century). However, astronomers and many others are misled by the reference in Matthew’s account to king Herod. They assume that it must be Herod the Great, known for his cruelty and who died in 4 BCE. Consequently, they look for a celestial phenomenon prior to that date, perhaps 5 or 6 BCE and sometime they find one. However, ’Herod’ was a family name and all of Herod the Great’s sons also carried the name. So merely calling a king ‘Herod’ was not sufficient identification and Dionysius’ calendar should not be accused of making a mistake. He almost certainly worked from Luke’s account of when John the Baptist began to preach (chapter 3). Note the reference to ‘Herod the Tetrarch’, whose name was actually ‘Antipas’:

'1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judæa, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituræa and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.'

Also a statement about the age of Jesus:

'23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,'

Tiberias’ 15th year was the year we call, using Dionysius’ system, 28 CE. Making allowances for the period between the appearance of John and Jesus’ mission, his birth must be place in the year 1 BCE (there was no year zero). There is no reason to abandon Dionysius’ calendar and every reason to eschew the idea that he made a mistake. Consequently, even if there had been a celestial phenomenon at the time of Jesus’ birth, astronomers have been looking in the wrong time.

The mistake made by astronomers is a classic example of ‘the law of the instrument’ or over-reliance on a familiar tool. It means that astronomers have been looking at the biblical record only from their own point of view, ignorant of the fact that the record does not lie within their competence. There are other examples of experts in one discipline believing that they can explain something that lies in another discipline. In this case, astronomers have seen what appears to be an astronomical record and assumed that they would be able to explain it. But the star is imaginary. It never really existed.

Please remember this when you next hear, as you will, of an astronomer trying to explain The Star of Bethlehem.


.

There are many things to worry the people of Earth: conflict in the Near East and the rise of ISIS, now causing more chaos in Libya; population growth and whether or not everyone can be fed; suicide bombers; conflict in Ukraine and Russian belligerence; jobs and the world economy and migration. But what will all that matter if civilisation collapses?
    In his book A guide to the end of the world (subtitle: ‘Everything you never wanted to know’, 2002), Bill McGuire claims that three epic events await us. These are a volcanic super-eruption, a giant tsunami and an earthquake storm.
    The last super-eruption was that of Toba in Sumatra about 73,000 years ago, which nearly exterminated our primitive ancestors. All that is left now is Lake Toba, but after the eruption, the ejected dust and gases covered the whole world and led to a ‘volcanic winter’ lasting 6-10 years, followed by a 1000-year long cooling period. Our modern civilisation is unlikely to survive such an event; there are food supplies for only 1-2 months! Yet there are several candidates for the next super-eruption, the obvious one being the magma chamber under Yellowstone Park in Wyoming (USA). Apparently it has erupted about every 650,000 years and last erupted 650,000 years ago; so it could erupt at any time from next week to next millennium. McGuire says that another unknown volcano could erupt at any time.
          McGuire warns about a giant tsunami from the collapse of the west flank of Cumbre Vieja volcano on La Palma (one of the Canary Islands). This would cause widespread destruction including millions of deaths, especially on the east coast of the USA, where the wave would be 50 metres high. The US economy would collapse and there would be a global meltdown.
          Japan and the west coast of the USA are especially vulnerable to earthquakes within the next 30 years; an earthquake storm would cause a recession and mass unemployment.
          Let us not ignore the threat from space. McGuire says that there are 13 small asteroids capable of wiping out a major city that could hit Earth before 2100.
          What about viruses like Ebola getting out of control? The human species could yet be wiped out by a disease for which we have no remedy. 

Yet there is another threat to civilisation which we could prevent. I refer the so-called ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’. These anodyne terms actually refer to the changes to climate, already evident, that, if unchecked, will destroy civilisation. That is because greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is causing global temperature to rise.
          In his book Climate Change (2003), John T Hardy explains that, even if carbon dioxide emissions were reduced to about to 1994 rates, the level will reach 500 parts-per-million by 2100 and that even if all emissions ceased today, the CO2 level would remain above pre-industrial level for 100 to 300 years. It has already reached 400 ppm.
          Needless to say, attempts to reduce emissions are too little and too late. There is no hope that the world will get to grips with this problem; there will be hand-wringing and pathetic promises of minor action. Hardy thinks that CO2 levels will quadruple in the next few centuries.
          Nor is CO2, the only culprit (contributing 60% of warming). Methane, although short-lived, is actually a more potent greenhouse gas (15.2%) and 20 per cent comes from other sources.
          The result of all this warming will not only be more violent and erratic weather patterns (some already evident), but rising sea levels as ice sheets and glaciers melt. Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average +2.6-2.9 mm per year ± 0.4 mm since 1993. Additionally, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years. For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 mm, and 1.7 mm ± 0.3 mm per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year per year. If this acceleration remains constant, the 1990 to 2100 sea level rise would range from 280 to 340 mm. Another study calculated the period from 1950 to 2009; measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009.
          A study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (see http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589) has shown that burning all the world’s available fossil-fuel reserves would completely melt the Antarctic ice sheet, triggering a 61 m rise in sea level. This would happen if the global temperature rise above 2 degrees C.
          A substantial rise in sea level will inundate coastal areas. About two thirds of the world's cities with over five million people are located in low-lying coastal areas. Future sea level rise could lead to potentially catastrophic difficulties for shore-based communities in the next centuries. For example, many major cities such as London, New Orleans and New York already need storm-surge defenses, and would need more if the sea level rose, though they also face issues such as subsidence. Can the world economy, operated from some of these cities, survive their flooding?
          Another effect of rising carbon levels in the atmosphere is acidification of the oceans as they absorb much of the CO2. This is bad news for many marine species, who may not survive. 

Are we doomed? Is there nothing that can be done? Of course global warming has two inter-related causes; the proliferation of greenhouse gases and insolation (heat from the Sun). So warming can be stopped, either by reducing greenhouse gases or by reducing insolation, or both. The former looks impossible—until it is too late. But the latter is possible.
          Several methods of reducing insolation by climate geoengineering have been proposed. These are classed as ‘Solar Radiation Management’ (SRM) methods, which reflect a small percentage of the Sun’s radiation back into space. The Royal Society concluded that these methods act quickly, and so may represent the only way to lower global temperatures quickly in the event of a climate crisis. However, they only reduce some, but not all, effects of climate change, while possibly creating other problems. They also do not affect CO2 levels and therefore fail to address the wider effects of rising CO2, including ocean acidification.
          Nevertheless, faced with the prospect of a global disaster, they have to be worth considering. SRM methods may include:

• Surface-based (land or ocean albedo modification); e.g. cool roof—using pale-colored roofing and paving materials.
• Troposphere-based, for example cloud whitening – using fine sea water spray to whiten clouds and thus increase cloud reflectivity. Such a method has been proposed Prof Stephen Salter of the University Edinburgh. He envisaged a flotilla of radio-controlled Flettner craft (using a vertical rotating cylinder for propulsion) spraying sea water as a low carbon alternative. As the water evaporates from the ultra-fine spray, the remaining grains of salt would provide the nuclei for low-level cloud condensation.
• Upper atmosphere-based: creating reflective aerosols, such as stratospheric sulphate aerosols, aluminium oxide particles, even specifically designed self-levitating aerosols.
• Space-based: space sunshade—obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors, asteroid dust, etc. This could be done in conjunction with a new space-exploration programme. We need to push on with this programme.

The cost of such methods varies greatly, with space-based solutions being the most expensive. One could object to the cost, but what price does one put on our civilization’s survival? It is regrettable that not one of these SRM methods looks like appearing anytime soon. I predict that one or more of them will have be deployed but that effective action will only be taken after the effects of global warming become very evident and perhaps disastrous.
          Mankind is in danger of destroying the complex technological civilization it has developed. Earth will survive, but perhaps not the human race.

 

 

Cartridge Save Ltd (http://www.cartridgesave.co.uk/thealties) has offered 13 cash prizes to film buffs who can write an alternative ending to their favourite movie. The grand prix prize is £2000.
          So I have entered an alternative ending, well near the ending, to the SciFi movie Contact (1997), one of my favourite films. The film is based on Carl Sagan’s book of the same name (1985). A SETI scientist, after years of searching, finds conclusive radio proof of intelligent aliens, who send plans for a mysterious machine that would enable humans to contact them.
          Near the end of the film, after the apparent failure of the machine, which carried the protagonist, Dr. Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster), is grilled by a Congressional investigation. During this grilling, Michael Kitz, the National Security Advisor (played by James Wood), asks her if she believes in God (the conflict between science and religion and the existence of God is a sub-theme in the film). She prevaricates and indicates that she has insufficient information on the matter.
          This always seemed to me to a lost opportunity to bring the conflict between believers and non-believers to a focus. So my alternative is that, when Alloway is asked that question, one that was gratuitous in the circumstances (it had nothing to do with her report and the operation of the machine), she responds with a question of her own, viz: ‘Which god would that be?’ Kitz has made three unjustified assumptions all at once, and scientists always question assumptions. He assumed that there is only one god, that we all know who that god is and that every believer worships that god. Indeed, ‘In God we trust’ was adopted as the official motto of the US in 1956, replacing ‘E pluribus unum’, which was adopted when the Great Seal was created and adopted in 1782. Since 1957, ‘In God we trust’ has also appeared on all US banknotes. However, nowhere is that god defined. It might be a reference to the god of the Bible and Jesus, but that would be an assumption. So Alloway’s new response is entirely justified.
    My alternative screenplay continues with a theological debate between Kitz and Alloway, where Kitz’s ignorance becomes obvious and the session breaks up in confusion, with the audience getting a glimpse of the stance of scientists, most of whom are non-religious, and a government playing lip-service to an ill-defined religion. The alien in the film, in the shape of Alloway’s dead father, showed no hint of a belief in any god.
    The deadline for entries to the competition is 4 September and have to be emailed to alternateendings@democracypr.com.