It is the age of the sceptic and don't we know it as they attempt to impose their way of thinking on the rest of us in not only the domain of cryptozoology but matters far and wide where they think theirs is the superior intellect.
However, one name I thought had retired to his armchair with his slippers and pipe is Ronald Binns. Nessie fans will know him well for his less than satisfactory book from 1983, "The Loch Ness Mystery Solved", which failed to live up to its title as it descended into a diatribe of exaggerations, misrepresentations and dubious interpretations.
I have covered the flaws in that book on several occasions on this blog with respect to the classic Mackay sighting and his treatment of the late Alex Campbell. The promotion for his new book, "The Loch Ness Mystery Reloaded", goes thusly:
On the fiftieth anniversary of the local newspaper report which made the Loch Ness Monster world famous, Ronald Binns published his classic but controversial book The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Over three decades later it remains both influential and a source of fierce debate. In this new book Binns takes a fresh look at Nessie in the light of later evidence and recent analysis of the classic photographs and film. He considers the relationship between the Loch Ness Monster and the water kelpie tradition of Scottish folklore. He also scrutinises the role played by central figures in the Loch Ness story such as Rupert Gould, Tim Dinsdale and Ted Holiday. Ronald Binns is a former member of the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau. He has made numerous visits to the loch in search both of the Monster and a greater understanding of this enduring phenomenon.
This is the latest book in a line of recent sceptical works will be released on the 8th August. That line includes Loxton and Prothero's "Abominable Science" (reviewed here), Tony Harmsworth's "Loch Ness Understood" (reviewed here) and Darren Naish's "Hunting Monsters" (reviewed here). That will be four sceptical books in seven years, too frequent in my opinion.
I am not sure how pleased they were with my reviews ...
They have all so far pretty much said the same thing and rehashed the old arguments but added more ridiculous ones such as the swan interpretation of the Hugh Gray photograph. I wait to be surprised and will post a review in due course (though that may unfortunately involve buying the book).
Reloaded .... must be a Matrix fan, this sequel will probably bomb as well.
ReplyDeleteIt will be utter drivel just like his first one.
ReplyDeleteTempted, temped.
ReplyDeletei request a large chapter also on the Canadian okanagan cryptid as well,( arlene gaal source).
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I think the public has been directed over years to ask no questions.
ReplyDeleteSo, if he's written another book, the mystery is clearly not solved as he stated. Or he's running short of dollars?
ReplyDeleteHi Roland. It is, in fact, easy to find out what I thought of your very odd review of my Hunting Monsters, since I posted a response here... https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Monsters-Cryptozoology-Reality-Behind-ebook/product-reviews/B01B867JTO/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=helpful&filterByStar=two_star&pageNumber=1
ReplyDeleteOh boy, rebutting of the rebutting of the rebuttal now required. Odd is a subjective term - as ever in this field.
DeleteThe Amazon listing now has a description of the book contents - see https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1999735900. It reads, "On the fiftieth anniversary of the local newspaper report which made the Loch Ness Monster world famous, Ronald Binns published his classic but controversial book The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Over three decades later it remains both influential and a source of fierce debate. In this new book Binns takes a fresh look at Nessie in the light of later evidence and recent analysis of the classic photographs and film. He considers the relationship between the Loch Ness Monster and the water kelpie tradition of Scottish folklore. He also scrutinises the role played by central figures in the Loch Ness story such as Rupert Gould, Tim Dinsdale and Ted Holiday. Ronald Binns is a former member of the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau. He has made numerous visits to the loch in search both of the Monster and a greater understanding of this enduring phenomenon."
ReplyDeleteI am a little surprised by the insulting comments above, which appear to me to be very closed-minded in advance and rather on the defensive. I should imagine that any book-length discussion of the LNM would be welcomed by all interested in the issue, whether or not it is sceptical. Binns did spend a lot of time at Loch Ness in the hunt for the monster, so his scepticism cannot be dismissed out of hand. I also doubt if he smokes a pipe or, if he does, whether that is relevant.
Thank you, I have updated the article accordingly. If Binns now treats "believers" with more respect, he would have earned it in return. We shall see.
DeleteI have read his earlier book. I don't see any "disrespect" as such. If you knowingly expose deliberate lies and hoaxes, I don't think respect is due to their perpetrators or those who continue to believe in them irrationally. The matter may be different with respect to issues on which there is no objective position and in which people differ as a matter of belief. For example, the famous Dinsdale film may or may not be subject to "objective proof" (I don't think it is, either way) but no one doubts the sincerity of Dinsdale's belief. Binns came to think (though he did not always think) that Dinsdale's belief was wrong. But I don't think he treated him disrespectfully. He didn't call him delusional or a hoaxer or a charlatan. He accepts that Dinsdale believed passionately in the LNM and does this belief justice while offering reasons why it was misguided. That seems to me quite a respectful method of analysis. I certainly intend to read the new book as it seems to promise a review of the evidence in the decades since his previous book. That is surely something anyone interested in the LNM should welcome, whether or not they believe in it.
DeleteHave you read my two articles on his treatment of Alex Campbell and the Mackay sighting?
DeleteNo, but I see the links to them in your post above and shall read them now. Thanks.
DeleteSorry,"NOT influential at all,but a forgettable book,( which I actually owned.)
DeleteI'm re-reading Loxtom and Prothero and was struck by this (p146 of the paperback). Quoting a Sunday Telegraph article on the alleged hoaxing of the Surgeon's Photograph, they have Ian Wetherall saying "I had the camera, which was a Leica" and "I took about five shots with the Leica". But every account of the Surgeon's Photograph that I have seen says it was taken with a plate camera. Are we to suppose that an image was somehow transferred from 35mm film onto a glass plate, and if so, what would be the point?
ReplyDeletei think the hoax is a hoax.
DeleteI think the Sunday Telegraph article suffers from a lot of false memories forty years after the event remembered.
DeleteI am very certain that the hoax is a hoax...
DeleteHas he solved it again? ;)
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly! I will be interested in what he has to say about Ted Holiday, but I suspect it may be a holier-than-thou panning of Holiday's somewhat eccentric views of the monster.
DeleteThere was a time when I'd have been rushing out to buy any new book on the LNM story. However these days the books keep coming but none are bringing anything new to the table.
ReplyDeleteI don't see what new spin Binns can possibly put on the subject. I'll wait for the reviews on here I think.
I know, I know. These sceptical books all tend to look alike, each vying to be king of the pile. But, I still buy them, fool that I am.
DeleteSceptic Darren Naish has tweeted:
ReplyDelete"Yes, Loch Ness Mystery Reloaded includes discussion of #HuntingMonsters. And a certain pro-Nessie blogger doesn't come out of it that well."
Let's just say I wasn't expecting Ronald Binns to be at the forefront of praising my work.
Lock and load.
I see that it is now available for purchase on Amazon as today is publication date. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1999735900/
ReplyDeleteYup, thanks. May wait a week and see if I can pick it up in a book bin sale for a pound. :)
DeleteI'd like to read the new Binns book. I really can't see how one can call his first book on the Loch Ness Monster rubbish. He developed his sceptical argument very thoroughly and the book is well written and organised. Even if you are a believer, I think you'd have to concede that the first Binns book is a well considered effort.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone actually seen the new one yet?
I was waiting till copies appeared in the one pound book bins next week.
DeleteI agree. its rubbish.
ReplyDeleteMike, how did he develop his argument thoroughly ? I cant understand how anyone can think its a well considered effort.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings on the original Binns book is that it was largely flawed but made a few good points. I don't remember too many specifics now, but there were a number of points at which he seemed to suggest that his hunches were proven facts. I like reading everything I can get hold of about Loch Ness and I will be buying the new book. It's the right thing to do as a researcher to consider all angles. Even though I'm certain the angle Binns looks from is almost entirely wrong.
ReplyDeleteP.S. According to the Browns Books for Students website, this book comes in stock on 15th September. If I buy it and it's mostly the same text as the original I will be very disappointed.
ReplyDeleteIt says on my copy of The Loch Ness Mystery Solved that Binns first went monster-spotting when he was 16 and has taken part in many monster hunting expeditions. He wasn’t someone who was against Nessie from the start, he obviously changed his mind. The level of abuse directed at that book together with his new one which no one has yet read shows that some minds are very closed.
ReplyDeleteJust to go on shouting that something is rubbish without offering anything by way of reasoned argument suggests that Binns has struck a raw nerve. He argued that the surgeon’s photo was probably a hoax and Dinsdale filmed a boat, he wasn’t exactly wrong there, was he? The Loch Ness Mystery Solved is well written. I think it’s particularly good on the history and the social context. My paperback copy comes festooned with rave reviews from a wide range of reputable publications. If the book was as bad as some suggest I don’t think it would have been well received by professional reviewers.
In the thirty years since the book came out the case for Nessie remains threadbare. No film, no close-up photographs. Just eyewitness statements. Binns was good on explaining why a monster based on just eyewitness claims lacks credibility.
My main point, however, is that no one can say a book is poor until they have read it and, as far as I can see from the comments above, only one person commenting here has as yet read it.
I guess you didn't read my rebuttals on Binns then.
DeleteBut that is just your opinion, not everyone shares your opinion. The title in itself is ludicrous, SOLVED.There are plenty of people who have spent far more time studying the loch than Binns and they dont come out with MYSTERY SOLVED. And your strong point for a good book is he says Dinsdale filmed a boat and the surgeons photo was a hoax, well im afraid a lot of people could have told you that. I think 80% of folk guessed the same. And yes ive read the book and yes i thought it was rubbish compared to most books ive read.
ReplyDeleteThe book no one seems to have read yet is THE LOCH NESS MYSTERY RELOADED, not SOLVED. Do tell us if you have read the former as it might improve this conversation.
DeleteYes, that is my opinion. Yes, not everyone shares my opinion. But I am pretty certain most people do. You don't seriously think the majority of people believe in the LNM, do you? So what's your point? Saying something is my opinion is not a rebuttal of my opinion. Unless you are prepared to engage with people's opinions, at the level of fact and judgment, there is no debate at all. Some opinions are more valuable than other opinions. Do you believe in the Big Bang theory or that God created ther world? If you think God created the world, and I tell you no, it was the Big Bang, do you think it relevant to say, "But that's just your opinion?" That's it? If so, then you don't hold reasonable beliefs, because you are not prepared to argue for them and allow your logic to be tested. The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming compared to the evidence for a universe-creating God. The two opinions are not equal.
It also seems to me perfectly sensible that opinions can change or be confirmed by new lines of debate, new evidence, a review of available evidence, etc. So I really don't know why anyone wants to attack a book they haven't read. It would make a difference if they read the book and then attacked it on detailed grounds rather than being rude about the author personally and acting AS IF diatribe were an argument.
I am personally a sceptic, obviously. The idea that sceptics are mad or in denial or covering up some obvious truth I find faintly ludicrous. I think the world would be a more interesting place with the LNM, but on balance I'm not prepared to allow my imaginative delight at the idea overwhelm the reasonable doubts that debate on the issue have raised. The evidence for the LNM is thin. But if you are a confirmed believer you obviously won't like people saying this as you have possibly invested a lot of energy in your belief. And that is fine. You can surely go on believing and ignore Binns. But it makes no sense to say anything about a book (by which I measn RELOADED) if you haven't read it.
You know, I was going to reject this comment that puts pro-Nessie people on a par with religious believers. It's a well worn and weary path oft trod by sceptics trying to paint cryptozoologists as some kind of fanatic that even needs to be censored.
DeleteWell, I don't know what an irrefutable photograph of God would look like, but I'll go out on a limb and actually accept that eyewitnesses are capable of accurately descrbing what they saw and that various films/photos do not bend so easily to simplistic and strange sceptical "interpretations".
I think your going slightly over the top here. It does not matter what the % of people believe in. We are talking about a book, and a book is about opinions. Roy was giving his opinion that the book didnt answer many questions of his interest in the mystery and i was saying the book is not very good ( rubbish a slight overword i agree) People have different opinions and you have to accept that though i have found many sceptics find that hard to do. If you read a book on another subject and you thought it was poor would you be quick to read another by the same author? I would not. But we are all different and some sceptics should try and take that in rather than try and slate others who have a different opinion.
DeleteI do have to agree with Gezza about the title. Mr Binns must feel frustrated that he solved the mystery all those years ago, but people don't seem to agree. If the mystery was solved by his book, why have so many books on the subject been published since I wonder. Then there are websites like this one and documentaries. There are also people who take a sceptical approach still heavily involved. The mystery has been neither proven nor disproven. That's why the activity and interest continues. Mr Binns is acknowledging that fact by publishing another book on the subject.
ReplyDeletewell lets hope its better than his last one. Maybe you could tell me Will because i wont be reading it.
DeleteI would be happy to post my thoughts on the book after I read it, Gezza.
DeleteThanks.I have to be honest i couldnt take the book seriously with that title SOLVED,and i agree with Roy i couldnt imagine it adding much to the middle of the road man. Im a firm believer in Nessie but Roy sounds like he is in the middle, im not sure of course just my hunch.I think a lot of books add to the mystery but one that says SOLVED for me its just plain daft. I look forward to hearing your review of the new one Will.
ReplyDeleteAsk any scientist to explain how the conditions that enabled the Big Bang to happen came about. They are unable to answer. They cannot explain the origins of what led to space and time existing. Big Bangs don't just appear from nothing whatsoever before them. We're all only scientists as much as current science allows us to be. I for one believe there are a great many unsolved mysteries, including what led to the existence of anything at all, including a Big Bang. The webpage owner does not want the comments going down this avenue, so I will not continue. I just wanted to have my say on the faith people put into science. Some is well founded, some is not.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, the book has now been unavailable for several days. Amazon glitch or something else?
ReplyDeleteI have my copy, just haven't got round to reading it due to higher priority tasks.
Where can I buy a copy? Like you say, unavailable on Amazon.
DeleteJust an Amazon glitch, it's back. I bought mine a month ago, haven't read it yet.
DeleteWill buy a copy soon. Have you read any of it yet? Is it critical of this website?
DeleteBrief flick thru. Me and Nick Redfern get full endorsements from Mr. Logic. Oh wait, its the complete opposite. Never mind.
DeleteWith my loch ness trip over, I can now have a closer look at it.