The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence

Rating:
Summary: There is one theory this book overlooked...
Review: The book was a bit too negative and ignored a recent theory that Dr. Roy Mackell (a scientist who spend 20 years studying the Loch Ness Monster) has suggested as the most likely candiatate for the Lake creature, that it is a large form of lake eel that lives at the bottom of the lake and only is seen occassionally at the surface. Eurpoean Lake eels do live in mountain lakes and are thought to grow at least 15 feet long if they live long enough. If nessie does exist, it is most likely a lake eel. But it would show that all those people were not wrong, that they had in fact seen a large animal swiming in the lake, it just was a large eel.

Rating:
Summary: Brutish Debunking of Loch Ness Enigma
Review: As a collector, and reader of books upon the Loch Ness Monster, this book is not one which I would recommend to readers with little or no knowledge of the subject. The author is highly skeptical of the existence of any such creature and debunks all available evidence. This is all well and good, however,in this reviewers opinion, he does on occasions dismiss too much information. Despite these objections, some of the authors criticism of evidence is quite properly and correctly deduced. But be warned, if you are looking for something to arbitarily explain the case facts, then this is not the volume for you. It is though, still a good read and a useful work to own to discover both sides of the argument.

Rating:
Summary: Incredibly skeptical case study
Review: Being an examination of the evidence (or lack thereof in the author's opinion) for the Loch Ness monster, while interesting, this book falls short on a few points. First off, it's extremely scientific tone makes for dry reading, yet on the other hand seems brief for it's intended purpose of thoroughness. Also, despite making some very good points the author tends to dismiss some evidence for reasons that would require more suspension of reality than would belief in a monster. In one case in particular, Mr. Campbell goes on for some pages discussing a case of evidence and abruptly dismisses it by stating that he came upon "rumors" of a hoax, the details of which he doesn't even go into. All in all, whether you are a believer or not, this book is interesting reading if you can get past the dry anylitical tone of it. However, be prepared to use the evidence presented to form your own opinion rather than buy into the author's emphatic belief that there simply cannot be a monster. Having visited the Loch in person myself, and ironically enough, purchasing this very book at the Loch Ness Monster Exhibit, I find it very difficult to believe that someone could look into it's massive, murky depths and say with 100% certainty that there could not be something lurking below. But that is exactly what Mr. Campbell does with this book.

Rating:
Summary: BEST NESSIE BOOK EVER
Review: I do not own this book but I got it from the Libary it was exellent but the famous surgeons photograph is fake and it had it in it that was the only reason I didnt like it.

Rating:
Summary: Highly skeptical study of some value
Review: I have to point out that other reviews of this book on the Amazon site appear to have been written by people who have not actually read Campbell's work. This is, in fact, the most vigorously skeptical study of the Loch Ness Monster ever written. It is penned in a dry style peculiar to Campbell (who insists, for example, in referring to the monster throughout as 'N') and is more a reference work than a light read. Many of Campbell's points are excellent ones, but on the whole the book sufferes from being short - there is little room to be comprehensive, or develop arguments - and from the author's invincible belief in the correctness of his own opinions. This is not justified. His survey of the famous Surgeon's Picture, for example, has been shown to be incorrect by the recent and much more detailed study of Dave Martin and Alistair Boyd, and on the whole the earlier skeptical work of Ronald Binns (The Loch Ness Mystery Solved, 1983) is better balanced and more detailed. In sum, believers will hate this book; skeptics and the unconvinced will find it valuable, but will certainly not enjoy it as a work of literature.

Rating:
Summary: What Loch Ness monster?
Review: The Loch Ness Monster is a detailed evaluation of every photographically supported sighting of the loch's alleged denizen since 1933. Campbell offers the most plausible explanation of each, and concludes that none survives close inspection. While he lists the ancient mythology that has been retroactively postulated as evidence for Nessie's existence, he finds that it is nothing more than a desperate ploy to reinterpret older fairy tales as early sightings.
If Nessie exists, then its ancestor must have entered Loch Ness at some time in the past, when there was a tunnel from the loch to the open sea. But since Loch Ness is 16 meters above sea level, any tunnel large enough to take Nessie would drain the lake down to sea level. There is no tunnel, and probably never was a tunnel. And for the creature to have survived for centuries, there would have to be a breeding herd of at least twenty individuals. But Loch Ness is too cold to support any cold-blooded species, and also does not have the capacity to feed such a number of large lifeforms.
Campbell shows that all alleged positive results of sonar, radar and photographic imaging, on close inspection, in fact prove to be negative. Not only does the loch not have the capacity to support a herd of monsters. No legitimate evidence exists that it does contain them. And given the thousands of man-hours devoted to loch watching by serious searchers, photographers and tourists, the logical conclusion is that, if Nessie existed, someone would have proven it by now. But the more Loch Ness is watched, the less the alleged monster shows itself.
Campell concludes that there is absolutely no reason why anyone should believe in lake monsters. If anyone doubts that conclusion on the basis of any specific evidentiary claim, the chances are it is one of the dozens of claims that the book examines and demolishes.

Rating:
Summary: What Loch Ness monster?
Review: The Loch Ness Monster is a detailed evaluation of every photographically supported sighting of the loch's alleged denizen since 1933. Campbell offers the most plausible explanation of each, and concludes that none survives close inspection. While he lists the ancient mythology that has been retroactively postulated as evidence for Nessie's existence, he finds that it is nothing more than a desperate ploy to reinterpret older fairy tales as early sightings.
If Nessie exists, then its ancestor must have entered Loch Ness at some time in the past, when there was a tunnel from the loch to the open sea. But since Loch Ness is 16 meters above sea level, any tunnel large enough to take Nessie would drain the lake down to sea level. There is no tunnel, and probably never was a tunnel. And for the creature to have survived for centuries, there would have to be a breeding herd of at least twenty individuals. But Loch Ness is too cold to support any cold-blooded species, and also does not have the capacity to feed such a number of large lifeforms.
Campbell shows that all alleged positive results of sonar, radar and photographic imaging, on close inspection, in fact prove to be negative. Not only does the loch not have the capacity to support a herd of monsters. No legitimate evidence exists that it does contain them. And given the thousands of man-hours devoted to loch watching by serious searchers, photographers and tourists, the logical conclusion is that, if Nessie existed, someone would have proven it by now. But the more Loch Ness is watched, the less the alleged monster shows itself.
Campell concludes that there is absolutely no reason why anyone should believe in lake monsters. If anyone doubts that conclusion on the basis of any specific evidentiary claim, the chances are it is one of the dozens of claims that the book examines and demolishes.

Rating:
Summary: The Loch Ness Monster-The Evidence; A Good Read
Review: When I first read this book,I was completely put off by it and seriously thought of returning it.It presents a totally negative view of the problem,and concludes that there is absolutely no postive evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster,or any other lake monster for that matter. Being a strong believer,I was ready to reject this idea.
Later,I realized that when examining the evidence,it is very important to look at both sides of the story.For instance,regardless of my pro-monster status,I now concede that the "Surgeon's Photo" is in fact a hoax,as well as Lachlan Stuart's "3-hump" photo. The famous "gargoyle head" photo snapped by an underwater camera most likely shows an engine block used as an anchor (but the other underwater phots arte still very interesting).
As to the book itself,it is a bit difficult to read-the author refers to the Monster as "N",the loch as "L. Ness",and uses a whole series of abbreviations,which make for some interesting,as well as confusing sentences. He also make many seemingly solid declarations without giving sources,the most common being that a film or photograph (pick one,any one) has "long been rumoured to be a hoax."
Summing up-if you a Monster enthusiast,by all means,read this book,but be prepared for a completely negative view of the whole matter,and remember that it is important to examine all sides of the issue.