COMMENTS

How I came to write The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence:

Since I moved to Scotland in 1962, I started collecting press items about the alleged Loch Ness Monster and visited L Ness a few times on holiday. Then, in 1985, I became aware that Aquarian Press, in conjunction with The Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, were planning to produce a series of books on mysteries under the editorship of Hilary Evans. Since I knew Evans, I asked him who was writing the book on Nessie (assuming that there would be one). It turned out that no one had been commissioned to do so; instead I was asked if I would write the book. I spent the next year researching the matter in depth (no pun intended) and provided a draft in 1986. It was my first book.
     The form of the book was not my choice. Because the publishers did not want to give the impression that the mystery was solved, they preferred me to trawl through the evidence, only allowing me to express my own conclusion in the final chapter. That is why the title appears so non-committal.

Revisions and updates:

I now think that the incident that started modern stories of Nessie (by report by Mr and Mrs Mackay relayed by Alex Campbell to the Inverness Courier, see p. 18 of the book),  was stimulated not by sight of an otter but by sight of a wave, probably caused by the wake of a large vessel. The report of an 'enormous black body rolling up and down' is more consistent with a wave. Also, the report by D Mackenzie (p. 17 of the book) was probably of a wave.
      P2: 1982 by Jennifer Bruce (p. 40): revised interpretation. It is now clear that the object is a bird, perhaps a gull, flying through the scene unnoticed as she took the picture.
     In 1991 Steve Feltham sold his house in Dorset and moved to L Ness to pursue his childhood dream of finding Nessie. He bought and lived in a converted mobile library, which he drove around the lake for some 9 years, usually parking it on the shore beside the Dores Inn. About 2000, the vehicle came to a permanent rest at Dores Beach, where he entertains visitors and makes a living selling sculptures of Nessie.
     Because he has no hunting programme, Steve is not really a hunter. He watches his area of the lake and occasionally takes boat trips out on the water. His aim is to see and film Nessie. He has appeared many times on radio and TV, including his own BBC2 video diary (‘Desperately seeking Nessie’).  I spoke to Steve at Dores in 2008 (see pic. below).

How I came to write The UFO Mystery Solved

This goes back to the 1950s when I was a student in Birmingham. One day I came across George Adamski's Inside the Space Ships (1955). Always interested in space travel, I was astonished at the author's claim to have travelled in alien spaceships. Because many believed that UFOs, then very topical, were such spaceships, this led to an interest in UFOs, coupled (unfortunately) with religion, an association that endured until I rejected Xianity (see comments on How I came to write The Rise and Fall of Jesus). Subsequently, I joined an organisation that investigated UFO reports, becoming their Scottish co-ordinator. By this time, I had collected very many reports and was the prime investigator of a sensational report from Livingston, only a few miles from Edinburgh. Attempts to explain this case, led me to the belief that I could explain many of the cases reported around the world--and the book emerged.
     Since publication, some of my identifications appear unsound and need revision. Nevertheless, I stand by the main theme, that mirages explain UFO reports that are otherwise inexplicable.

How I came to write The Rise and Fall of Jesus:

I wrote this book because I could. I was brought up as a Christian, but not by my parents (they thought that sending me to Sunday School would just make me good). After rejecting Christianity in 1970, I had accumulated a lot of biblical knowledge but was left with the question; if Jesus was not who he claimed, then who was he and what was he doing? Also how did Christianity actually begin? To answer those questions, I had to read many books on Jesus' life by non-believers or historians of Christianity. This showed that, although many authors, especially Albert Schweitzer, had glimpsed the reality behind the myth, none had put all the clues together, to see Jesus' full plan. Because I could see that plan, I just had to write about it.
     Because there have been so many books about Jesus, almost every conceivable title has been used, some more than once by different authors. But I wanted a title that had not been used before. Surprisingly, no one had used the one I chose.

How I came to write Chinook Crash:

I did not take an interest in this accident until I saw a TV programme about it in 1998. I then realized that it lacked an explanation. Determined to see if I could find one, I began to examine the records of a Fatal Accident Inquiry held in Paisley in 1996 (I had not attended the Inquiry, although I knew someone who had). Looking through the volumes of transcripts, I realized that they must have been produced by shorthand writers (stenographers), who might have the whole transcript in a digital form. This turned out to be true and I bought the discs of the transcript from them (for £100)*. I was conscious then of being the only person in the whole world who had a copy of the records of this 18-day Inquiry. I had to make use of this to write a book, although at that time I did not have an explanation for the crash. Regardless, I started writing about the events that led up to the crash; they were all explained by RAF witnesses to the Inquiry. While doing this I acquired an agent, who encouraged me to continue and found me a publisher. Only near the end of writing the book, did I reach a conclusion about the cause of the accident, a navigation error that appears to be of no interest to the MoD. The latter's accusation against the pilots (that they broke safety rules) is justified but in no way explains the crash.
     Tim Slessor, in his book Lying in State (2004), does discuss the incident (inter alia), but blames the MoD rather then the pilots.

*Later I donated the discs and a CD of my integrated and corrected copy of the Inquiry transcript to the National Library of Scotland, where anyone can inspect them.

Recent developments:

The families of the dead pilots, convinced that the latter could never have made any mistake, have always been convinced that there was a fault with the aircraft. They were supported in this belief by some members of the House of Lords, who called themselves the 'Mull of Kintyre Group'. Early on they were led by Lord Chalfont, but now they are led by Lord (Martin) O'Neill. On 7 December 2007, it was announced that the Secretary of State for Defence (then Des Browne) had agreed to meet Lord O’Neil to receive a new report that the Mull of Kintyre Group had compiled into the accident, and that he would consider its contents. This meeting took place on 15 January 2008 at the MoD. I was told that the report would be shown on a website, but I have not been successful in getting Lord O'Neill to publish this report.  On 9 Dec 2008, the MoD announced that, because no new evidence had been presented, it would not be revising its decision. I continue to ask O'Neill for a copy of his report.
   On 4 Jan 2010, UK TV and radio news programmes announced the 'discovery' (allegedly by the BBC's 'Today' programme) of evidence that faulty engine control could have caused the accident and there were calls for re-examination of the matter by the RAF. The following day's newspapers carried the same report. On 7 Jan The Times carried a rebuttal of these claims by ACM Sir Stephen Dalton and The Scotsman carried one from me. On 11 Jan 2010, there were questions in the House of Commons to the Defence Minister asking if he would meet the families of the pilots. He agreed, but stated that, because there was no new evidence, the inquiry would not be reopened. There were other questions, one from an opposition MP declaring that a Conservative government would reopen the inquiry.  
   After a change of government, on 26 May 2010 it was announced that there would be an independent inquiry apparently associated with the persistent idea that the pilots were wrongly accused of causing the accident (this seems to prejudice the inquiry). This was reported in the Scotsman on 27 May 2010. On 28 Jul 2010, radio and TV news reported that retired judge Lord Alexander Philip would review the evidence and this was also reported in the following day's newspapers. It was also reported that his 'inquiry' will take place in private.