What do you think?
Rate this book
The Loch Ness mystery solved
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 14, 2008
As a kid I was fascinated by unexplained phenomena, like UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle and, of course, Gef the Talking Mongoose. But the Loch Ness Monster always topped the coolness scale.
One day, while wasting time at my college's library, I came across The Loch Ness Mystery Solved, which turned out to be the best book on the Loch Ness Monster ever written. What made this book superior to all others was that it dared to suggest a possibility too often ignored by other authors on this subject. Namely, (SPOILER) that there is no Loch Ness Monster.
The idea that there might not be a plesiosaur chowing down on salmon in Loch Ness will alarm some folks, so the author of this book made sure to back up his controversial allegations with facts. Facts about the size of the salmon population in the loch, for example. Facts about how much food would be required to sustain a viable breeding herd of Nessie-sized animals. Facts about how corpses typically decay and float back to the surface now and then (though Loch Ness Monster supporters have sometimes alleged that the monsters swallow stones to weigh them down before they die--touché!).
The book spills on the circumstances surrounding the growth of the legend and of various sightings, and exposes various agenda-pushing monster propagandists (e.g., Frank Searle, a seemingly lucky fellow who encountered Nessie enough times to produce "a series of increasingly clumsy photographs purporting to be of the monster"--while hapless tourists and long-time loch locals never caught a glimpse). Somehow these stories were always conveniently omitted from other volumes I had read on the subject (Searle's photos are still frequently reproduced, sometimes with captions like, "Although some allege these are fake, this cannot be proven" and so forth).
The book does make one unfortunate stumble at the end. In citing an example of scientific reality vs. public perception, Binns cites the case of Tyrannosaurus rex, which he claims was not the "ferocious brute" portrayed in so many movies, but rather a creature that "spent much of its time resting on its belly, periodically waddling sluggishly off in search of carrion." Perhaps in 1983, when the book was published, that was accepted to be true of T. rex in the scientific community, but that is no longer the prevailing notion.
That minor glitch aside, reading this as a freshman in college changed my life. The book demonstrated that as far as entertainment goes truth trumps fiction. Isn't it more interesting to look into why people believe in absurdities like Loch Ness Monsters than to go around believing in the monster itself? But most people likely don't agree with me on that point, and that's why I am sure this book will remain out of print forever.
Gef the Talking Mongoose, on the other hand, was totally real.
One day, while wasting time at my college's library, I came across The Loch Ness Mystery Solved, which turned out to be the best book on the Loch Ness Monster ever written. What made this book superior to all others was that it dared to suggest a possibility too often ignored by other authors on this subject. Namely, (SPOILER) that there is no Loch Ness Monster.
The idea that there might not be a plesiosaur chowing down on salmon in Loch Ness will alarm some folks, so the author of this book made sure to back up his controversial allegations with facts. Facts about the size of the salmon population in the loch, for example. Facts about how much food would be required to sustain a viable breeding herd of Nessie-sized animals. Facts about how corpses typically decay and float back to the surface now and then (though Loch Ness Monster supporters have sometimes alleged that the monsters swallow stones to weigh them down before they die--touché!).
The book spills on the circumstances surrounding the growth of the legend and of various sightings, and exposes various agenda-pushing monster propagandists (e.g., Frank Searle, a seemingly lucky fellow who encountered Nessie enough times to produce "a series of increasingly clumsy photographs purporting to be of the monster"--while hapless tourists and long-time loch locals never caught a glimpse). Somehow these stories were always conveniently omitted from other volumes I had read on the subject (Searle's photos are still frequently reproduced, sometimes with captions like, "Although some allege these are fake, this cannot be proven" and so forth).
The book does make one unfortunate stumble at the end. In citing an example of scientific reality vs. public perception, Binns cites the case of Tyrannosaurus rex, which he claims was not the "ferocious brute" portrayed in so many movies, but rather a creature that "spent much of its time resting on its belly, periodically waddling sluggishly off in search of carrion." Perhaps in 1983, when the book was published, that was accepted to be true of T. rex in the scientific community, but that is no longer the prevailing notion.
That minor glitch aside, reading this as a freshman in college changed my life. The book demonstrated that as far as entertainment goes truth trumps fiction. Isn't it more interesting to look into why people believe in absurdities like Loch Ness Monsters than to go around believing in the monster itself? But most people likely don't agree with me on that point, and that's why I am sure this book will remain out of print forever.
Gef the Talking Mongoose, on the other hand, was totally real.
March 28, 2025
A SURPRISING ‘SOLUTION’ TO THE MYSTERY
Authors Ronald Binns and R.J. Bell wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “It was in May 1933 that a small Scottish local paper first carried a report of a gigantic unknown animal being sighted in Loch Ness… Loch Ness has never looked back. There have been hundreds of sightings and numerous photographs, but firm indisputable proof of the monster’s existence remains teasingly absent… What makes the Loch Ness monster such a puzzle is the very restricted location involved in the mystery. It surely ought to be possible to solve the question of a huge unknown animal or animals living in such a small habitat. Loch Ness… by global standards … is a tiny lake…
“Why, after half a century, is the monster still shrouded in ambiguity? Why have all the expeditions in search of the monster failed?... The more people go to Loch Ness to look for monsters the less the creatures are seen… Anyone who has talked, as we have, to eye-witnesses, has to admit that fraud can in most cases be ruled out. The majority of persons who claim to have seen something inexplicable in the Loch are undoubtedly sincere… But the solution of the Loch Ness mystery involves… a quest which we invite the reader to share… [It] requires a fresh look at the sources of the mystery. If involves peeling back fifty years of … legend and anecdote about the monster. It involves a new look at … the photographic evidence, and a re-examination of the results produced by sonar and other underwater devices. We regard the Loch Ness mystery as a mystery which can be solved. Our solution will probably be controversial but it is, we believe, unanswerable.”
They report that “one businessman was sufficiently impressed by the enigma to finance further investigation. This was Sir Edward Mountain… Sir Edward employed twenty [unemployed] local men… [a] total of 21 photographs were taken… To be offered a bonus of ten guineas each time anyone photographed Nessie must have provided a great incentive to pander to the noble baronet’s whimsy… the men were than laid off and Sir Edward .. [wrote] an article… Unfortunately the two photographs which Mountain used to illustrate his article show all too clearly that the photographers had been pulling his leg. The humped ‘monster’ and ‘the heavy wash created by the monster after it had passed with amazing speed… are all too obviously boat’s wakes…” (Pg. 36-38)
They note, “During all this time and all this activity no one ever reported seeing monsters in Loch Ness… it seems odd that the monster was never seen by English troops or by the men on the sailing boats which silently plied the loch, or even by Victorian tourists out fishing. The negative evidence against the existence of a herd of giant unknown animals in Loch Ness seems overwhelming.” (Pg. 73)
They suggest, “In the beginning the Loch Ness monster myth perhaps only involved a harmless combination of expectation and imagination, fueled by a press hungry for sensation, which in turn found individuals who willingly craved publicity. But when the first photographs of the beast began to appear a new element entered the story---deliberate deception.” (Pg. 95)
They comment on the famous 1934 photos by Lieutenant Colonel Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London gynecologist: “The question of what Wilson actually photographed will perhaps never be answered… it is just possible that it shows an otter’s tail or a diving bird… Alternatively it may simply have been a model which Wilson threw into the Loch. Maurice Burton has perceptively observed that ‘The ripples … are typical of an object entering water rather than something being thrust up from below.’ There is also the question of scale. If the object was photographed on a telephoto lens at a range of only one hundred yards then it was clearly something quite small---possibly only ten or twelve inches in height.” (Pg. 97)
They recount, “the Loch Ness Investigation [L.N.I.] returned to the Lock in 1964. This new expedition was organized on bigger and better lines… ‘it was not unreasonable to suppose that dawn till dusk watching, seven days a week for five months, would produce results.’ (Pg. 129-130)
“By the end of the 1967 monster-hunting season [Tim Dinsdale] felt deeply depressed. His twelfth successive expedition to the Loch in seven years had ended, yet again, in failure… Though nobody knew it at the time, 1967 was to be the climax for the hunt for the beast using movie film.” (Pg. 133) “The failure to obtain close-up motion film of the monster had a catastrophic effect on the monster fraternity.” (Pg. 135)
They explain, “If the Birmingham team HAD picked up evidence of monsters in the Loch then the behavior patterns seemed very peculiar. A cross-section of Loch Ness had been kept under sonar surveillance for 19,960 minutes continuously. During almost the entire period no large unknown objects were logged. Then, suddenly, in a thirteen-minute episode, one ‘monster’ rose up from the loch floor, while another dived into view from near the surface… The idea that a herd of twenty-four giant animals were swimming about in the depths of Loch Ness began to look dubious.” (Pg. 148)
The recount, “in a little-known research paper published in 1970 Professor [D.G.] Tucker … emphasized the great problems involved in interpreting sonar data… referring to the ‘large group of objects’ seen rising from the bed in 1968 he commented: ‘Probably they were gas bubbles released when the target disturbed the bottom.’ … In other words the 1968 ‘monster’ recording was now subject to a number of technical reservations…. The mystery object which appeared in the frame and dived at 450 feet a minute might not have been doing any such thing.” (Pg. 149-150)
They assert, “The idea that any of the Loch Ness investigators would indulge in hoaxes is invariably regarded by believers as a preposterous and unthinkable idea. This is perhaps to take too rosy a view of human nature. Loch Ness has attracted more than its fair share of hoaxers and charlatans… Monster ‘experts’ have not always been over-scrupulous with the evidence in seeking to convert the uninitiated to the idea that something funny lives in Loch Ness.” (Pg. 156) “To believers the head and neck sightings are the most difficult to explain away, and obviously cannot be attributed to floating tree trunks, boats’ wakes, otters or deer.” (Pg. 193)
What is the authors’ ‘solution’? “Birds … which find Loch Ness an acceptable feeding area, are the fish-eating ‘diving ducks’… the largest is 31 inches in length… That such birds account for some of the monster 'head and neck’ sightings seems obvious.” (Pg. 197) “They are all fish-predators … frequently submerging for two or three minutes at a time…. They have been known to submerge to depths of over a hundred feet… when alarmed … divers can sink vertically until only their necks or just the tips of their bill show… These are all typical characteristics of the ‘monster.’” (Pg. 197)
"[T]he absence of any object for comparison, combined with the preconception of the ‘monster’ being large, will result in grossly exaggerated estimates of size… If a bird then sinks, or dives, re-surfacing perhaps minutes later, outside the observer’s angle of vision, the dramatic effect will be complete. That person will be absolutely convinced that he or he has seen a monster.” (Pg. 200)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the Loch Ness phenomena,.
Authors Ronald Binns and R.J. Bell wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “It was in May 1933 that a small Scottish local paper first carried a report of a gigantic unknown animal being sighted in Loch Ness… Loch Ness has never looked back. There have been hundreds of sightings and numerous photographs, but firm indisputable proof of the monster’s existence remains teasingly absent… What makes the Loch Ness monster such a puzzle is the very restricted location involved in the mystery. It surely ought to be possible to solve the question of a huge unknown animal or animals living in such a small habitat. Loch Ness… by global standards … is a tiny lake…
“Why, after half a century, is the monster still shrouded in ambiguity? Why have all the expeditions in search of the monster failed?... The more people go to Loch Ness to look for monsters the less the creatures are seen… Anyone who has talked, as we have, to eye-witnesses, has to admit that fraud can in most cases be ruled out. The majority of persons who claim to have seen something inexplicable in the Loch are undoubtedly sincere… But the solution of the Loch Ness mystery involves… a quest which we invite the reader to share… [It] requires a fresh look at the sources of the mystery. If involves peeling back fifty years of … legend and anecdote about the monster. It involves a new look at … the photographic evidence, and a re-examination of the results produced by sonar and other underwater devices. We regard the Loch Ness mystery as a mystery which can be solved. Our solution will probably be controversial but it is, we believe, unanswerable.”
They report that “one businessman was sufficiently impressed by the enigma to finance further investigation. This was Sir Edward Mountain… Sir Edward employed twenty [unemployed] local men… [a] total of 21 photographs were taken… To be offered a bonus of ten guineas each time anyone photographed Nessie must have provided a great incentive to pander to the noble baronet’s whimsy… the men were than laid off and Sir Edward .. [wrote] an article… Unfortunately the two photographs which Mountain used to illustrate his article show all too clearly that the photographers had been pulling his leg. The humped ‘monster’ and ‘the heavy wash created by the monster after it had passed with amazing speed… are all too obviously boat’s wakes…” (Pg. 36-38)
They note, “During all this time and all this activity no one ever reported seeing monsters in Loch Ness… it seems odd that the monster was never seen by English troops or by the men on the sailing boats which silently plied the loch, or even by Victorian tourists out fishing. The negative evidence against the existence of a herd of giant unknown animals in Loch Ness seems overwhelming.” (Pg. 73)
They suggest, “In the beginning the Loch Ness monster myth perhaps only involved a harmless combination of expectation and imagination, fueled by a press hungry for sensation, which in turn found individuals who willingly craved publicity. But when the first photographs of the beast began to appear a new element entered the story---deliberate deception.” (Pg. 95)
They comment on the famous 1934 photos by Lieutenant Colonel Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London gynecologist: “The question of what Wilson actually photographed will perhaps never be answered… it is just possible that it shows an otter’s tail or a diving bird… Alternatively it may simply have been a model which Wilson threw into the Loch. Maurice Burton has perceptively observed that ‘The ripples … are typical of an object entering water rather than something being thrust up from below.’ There is also the question of scale. If the object was photographed on a telephoto lens at a range of only one hundred yards then it was clearly something quite small---possibly only ten or twelve inches in height.” (Pg. 97)
They recount, “the Loch Ness Investigation [L.N.I.] returned to the Lock in 1964. This new expedition was organized on bigger and better lines… ‘it was not unreasonable to suppose that dawn till dusk watching, seven days a week for five months, would produce results.’ (Pg. 129-130)
“By the end of the 1967 monster-hunting season [Tim Dinsdale] felt deeply depressed. His twelfth successive expedition to the Loch in seven years had ended, yet again, in failure… Though nobody knew it at the time, 1967 was to be the climax for the hunt for the beast using movie film.” (Pg. 133) “The failure to obtain close-up motion film of the monster had a catastrophic effect on the monster fraternity.” (Pg. 135)
They explain, “If the Birmingham team HAD picked up evidence of monsters in the Loch then the behavior patterns seemed very peculiar. A cross-section of Loch Ness had been kept under sonar surveillance for 19,960 minutes continuously. During almost the entire period no large unknown objects were logged. Then, suddenly, in a thirteen-minute episode, one ‘monster’ rose up from the loch floor, while another dived into view from near the surface… The idea that a herd of twenty-four giant animals were swimming about in the depths of Loch Ness began to look dubious.” (Pg. 148)
The recount, “in a little-known research paper published in 1970 Professor [D.G.] Tucker … emphasized the great problems involved in interpreting sonar data… referring to the ‘large group of objects’ seen rising from the bed in 1968 he commented: ‘Probably they were gas bubbles released when the target disturbed the bottom.’ … In other words the 1968 ‘monster’ recording was now subject to a number of technical reservations…. The mystery object which appeared in the frame and dived at 450 feet a minute might not have been doing any such thing.” (Pg. 149-150)
They assert, “The idea that any of the Loch Ness investigators would indulge in hoaxes is invariably regarded by believers as a preposterous and unthinkable idea. This is perhaps to take too rosy a view of human nature. Loch Ness has attracted more than its fair share of hoaxers and charlatans… Monster ‘experts’ have not always been over-scrupulous with the evidence in seeking to convert the uninitiated to the idea that something funny lives in Loch Ness.” (Pg. 156) “To believers the head and neck sightings are the most difficult to explain away, and obviously cannot be attributed to floating tree trunks, boats’ wakes, otters or deer.” (Pg. 193)
What is the authors’ ‘solution’? “Birds … which find Loch Ness an acceptable feeding area, are the fish-eating ‘diving ducks’… the largest is 31 inches in length… That such birds account for some of the monster 'head and neck’ sightings seems obvious.” (Pg. 197) “They are all fish-predators … frequently submerging for two or three minutes at a time…. They have been known to submerge to depths of over a hundred feet… when alarmed … divers can sink vertically until only their necks or just the tips of their bill show… These are all typical characteristics of the ‘monster.’” (Pg. 197)
"[T]he absence of any object for comparison, combined with the preconception of the ‘monster’ being large, will result in grossly exaggerated estimates of size… If a bird then sinks, or dives, re-surfacing perhaps minutes later, outside the observer’s angle of vision, the dramatic effect will be complete. That person will be absolutely convinced that he or he has seen a monster.” (Pg. 200)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the Loch Ness phenomena,.
July 4, 2016
The science behind it is kind of boring, but there is no Loch Ness Monster. It was started to attract tourists in the '30's.
February 5, 2025
Wanted to give it a 3 and a half but idk how. Spoilers: ronnie shows us exactly how the loch Ness monster is fake and the tour through the evidence and accounts is interesting. Good flight book
March 29, 2026
I bought this because with a title this absurd I just couldn’t ignore it. Unfortunately, it would’ve been way more enjoyable if I just sat down and sped through it in a couple days instead of over a few weeks.
I dragged it out though and it became a chore to finish, being hard to pick up in the middle of a chapter. It’s a well written, and a clever journalistic look into falling for/building up hype, but I just didn’t have it in me to really love it.
I will, without a doubt, be reading the sequel.
I dragged it out though and it became a chore to finish, being hard to pick up in the middle of a chapter. It’s a well written, and a clever journalistic look into falling for/building up hype, but I just didn’t have it in me to really love it.
I will, without a doubt, be reading the sequel.
February 25, 2023
It’s an old book, but still very relevant. The author sets an example for us, skeptics. He respects the “believers”, but follows the evidence with a critical mind. His musings about the why and how of the Nessie story are well thought out and applicable to many paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 17, 2019
The Loch Ness Mystery Solved
January 3, 2009
This is a nice piece of investigative journalism, tracking the 'monster' to its first appearance-in a 1930's newspaper article. I really liked tracking the 'sightings' and the various details attributed to Nessie. Not the most readable of books, but the information and investigative work make it interesting.
May 3, 2010
Thank goodness I read this book on the subject before considering the older classics... this is a really good clear read and it gives you lots of lovely tidbits of knowledge to keep in mind when thinking about the Nessies.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews