Thursday, 15 August 2019

A Word on Paul Harrison




As readers may know, Paul Harrison is a well known author on matters pertaining to the Loch Ness Monster. Most enthusiasts for the subject will have a copy of his "Encyclopaedia of the Loch Ness Monster" and may also have his other cryptid work, "Sea Serpents and lake Monsters of the British Isles" on their bookshelves. However, it is in true crime writing that he had established his name writing a plethora of books and engaging on a career devoted to that subject.

But it was with sadness and regret that I recently read of allegations by the Sun newspaper that he had lied about and fabricated interviews with famous serial killers Peter Sutcliffe and Ted Bundy amongst others. Paul has made some sort of confession and has now withdrawn from social media and other activities awaiting whatever happens next.

In blog posts over the years, I have intimated that Paul said he had the manuscript for a book concerning one or more interviews he held with infamous monster hunter, Frank Searle, whom he said he tracked down to his home in Lancashire in his latter years. A book on a serial hoaxer would have fitted in well with his books on serial killers I surmised.

But now in the light of these allegations, I must question whether such an interview took place at all and whether it was just a fabrication like those interviews conducted with famous serial killers. The fact that Paul repeatedly put off publishing such a book despite saying he had the manuscript all but ready does not fill me with confidence either.

Now Paul may well have tracked down Frank like he said he did and there is still a book to be read. But the onus is now on him what to do or say next about this matter. I won't pre-judge him and neither will I contact him as I suspect he has a lot on his plate to deal with and Frank Searle will be the least of his concerns.

So I will just leave it at that but thank him for the research he has contributed to the great subject of the Loch Ness Monster over the years.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




21 comments:

  1. It pains me to say it, but for me this business calls into question his claimed sighting of the LNM. I will say no more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Such a shame.. Ive got his book and I like it as it offers summit different to other books! In his introduction he says he believed in nessie cus of some fishermen he met and one claimed he wudnt go on the Loch at night cus he had seen a big creature on the Loch roadside one night...i suppose we have to question all this now..such a shame... Why do people have to tell lies.. Never the less.. His book is a good one and worthy of any collection.....cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He does mention a land sighting in his introduction, but I don't think he claims he was the eyewitness.

      Delete
  3. No the fisherman witnessed it he said..think this is why he started believing in nessie. . Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, well Paul does list a sighting of his own in the book. As said before, the ball is in his court about all this after these allegations.

      Delete
  4. Reputation is everything, as my mum drummed into me from a young age. It's strange how Mr Harrison's has now become questionable, while our PM (a confirmed liar) is elected to head one of the most crucial modern phases of UK life. It's a funny world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. However much a slippery rogue Searle was, he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with Bundy.
    Would non-LNM people really want to read a book about him though ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, serial hoaxers, serial murderers, serial shoplifters, serial liars, serial whatever, there is a probably a common theme in there somewhere.

      By way of example, would non-football people really want to read a book about Billy Bremner?

      Delete
  6. Break, Break. News Flash! Guy in Hong Kong spots Blob Nessie on Webcam! Eoin O' Faodhagain must have been asleep at the switch to miss this one. Something really has got to be done about that potato cam! Unless it's Godzilla were never going to get a decent shot.

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/watch-webcam-viewer-in-hong-kong-spots-loch-ness-monster

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think the most famous cryptid in the world is surrounded by low resolution cameras for a reason?

      Delete
    2. I don't know about surrounded. Unless you're also talking about the Smartphones carried by thousands of tourists. That would be the main reason for years of poor pics and videos. That might be the only Webcam available on the net (Mikko Takala's) overlooking Urquhart bay, Looks like it anyway. Only a higher definition cam and closer to shore would solve this Loch Ness Blob Mystery

      Delete
    3. I'm been comparing that video with the still that Roland posted on July 29 of a Jacobite cruiser at approximately the same distance. I think it's about 3 meters long. That's too large for common birds, and I think a seal would not show that much of its length above the surface. It could be a boat, of course, but I cannot convince myself that it looks like one. What do people think?

      Delete
    4. These webcam sightings are tantalising- and as always maddeningly bereft of detail. I have to say though, this one and another I saw in the last 12 months do pose some questions- the object doesn't look small by any stretch.

      Well-sited webcams with decent resolution and close proximity could, if not "solve" the mystery, at least put it behind reasonable doubt. In an ideal world, we could have "control" webcams at confirmed "non-monster" lochs such as Lomond, to see if similar images materialise, in case we become "too hasty" in our positivity over such images.

      If any other webcams could be put up by Ness, I have a hunch that keeping it quiet and not revealing the location would be a smart move.

      Delete
  7. DNA study hinting at a plausible explanation for the LNM.

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/dna-study-finds-one-theory-for-the-loch-ness-monster-remains-plausible/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A living elasmosaurus,as seen by the Biologist Professor Tucker PhD..would have dna that would not be recognizable,( not on record) and the giant salamander ( water bull) would have unknown but recognizable amphibian dna.I don't know about the giant horse eels though.

      Delete
  8. OT, but the results of that loch water test are coming out soon and they say one candidate is plausible...
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49419989

    ReplyDelete
  9. How have they concluded only one candidate is plauisble? Even if nothing is found apart from known fish there is still two plauisble answers i can think of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in your opinion are the two plausible answers Gezza?

      Delete
  10. They will have no doubt found edna off eels so what is to say there are no giant eels in the loch? We also cant rule out something big coming in from the sea now and again therefore not leaving permanent edna in the water.We know seals get into the loch now and again so why not something else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds logical to me. The only problem I have with the itinerant Nessie theory is this: How come no Nessie has ever been trapped, sighted or photographed in proximity to the locks. I don't know the mechanics of how the locks work, so maybe trapped is a bad scenario.

      Delete
  11. This is depressing. I liked his book on Nessie.

    ReplyDelete