Skip to main content

UFO Drawings from the National Archives - David Clarke ***

This is a lovely little book that, sadly, not every reader will see the point of. If somebody’s anecdotal account of a presumed alien encounter is obviously a misperception of a mundane occurrence, or else too vague – or too far-fetched – to be taken seriously, then it’s all too easy to dismiss it as worthless. But that’s missing the point. The fact that so many incidents are reported in these terms makes the witnesses’ testimony worthy of serious study – to teach us, not about extraterrestrial civilisations, but about our own culture.

That was the core message of David Clarke’s excellent How UFOs Conquered the World published a couple of years ago. Now Clarke is back with another take on the same basic theme.  His day job is Reader and Principal Lecturer in Journalism at Sheffield Hallam University, but for the last ten years he’s also acted as consultant for the National Archives project to release all of Britain’s official Ministry of Defence (MoD) files on UFOs. Throughout the Cold War period, the MoD welcomed UFO reports from the public – not because they were seriously worried about extraterrestrial invasion, but because some of the sightings might be naïve misinterpretations of Soviet spyplanes overflying the United Kingdom.

In total, the National Archives material amounts to over 60,000 pages of UFO reports and related correspondence. What Clarke has done for this volume – the second in a series on the ‘visual history of modern British culture’ – is to search through those thousands of pages for the most eyecatching and interesting images. The result is visually stunning – surprisingly so, given that most of the pictures are ‘amateur’ in every sense of the word. I’m sure they look a lot better here than in the original files, thanks to the book’s impressive production standards – art-quality gloss paper, and a gorgeous printed, wraparound cloth cover.

The book is arranged chronologically, which highlights one of its most striking features – which is that (despite purporting to illustrate spacecraft from another planet) the pictures generally belong to their time. Drawings from the 1950s look 1950s; drawings from the 1980s look 1980s. As Clarke says at one point ‘Some artists’ impressions of UFOs betray the influence of popular culture. Drawings in the MoD archives resemble futuristic flying saucers, rockets and spaceships from TV shows, movies and comic books.’

I’ll just mention a couple of specific examples which struck me as particularly impressive. First there’s the lovely painting reproduced on the book’s wraparound cover. This was sent to MoD by a Mr Campbell, of Birmingham, in January 1975. Apart from its visual appeal, it’s interesting because the witness provided enough detail to allow MoD to identify the object as one of a pair of Soviet satellites. Perhaps surprisingly, Mr Campbell professed himself happy with this identification, saying he ‘could hardly imagine it to have been anything but what you say is likely’. If only all UFO enthusiasts were that open-minded!


Another interesting case occurred in October 1977, when ten children at a Cheshire primary school saw a ‘flying saucer’ hovering over a group of trees near their playground. Their teacher got them to draw what they’d seen, making sure they couldn’t copy each other. All 10 pictures are reproduced in the book, and despite variations from one to another they clearly all show the same thing. Of course it wasn’t an alien spacecraft – that’s just how the kids’ cultural conditioning interpreted it – but they certainly saw something out of the ordinary.

Overall verdict: For people who are really into this sort of thing, an easy five stars. For everyone else, let’s call it a three-star curiosity.

Hardback:  


Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quantum Space: Jim Baggott *****

There's no doubt that Jim Baggott is one of the best popular science writers currently active. He specialises in taking really difficult topics and giving a more in-depth look at them than most of his peers. The majority of the time he achieves with a fluid writing style that remains easily readable, though inevitably there are some aspects that are difficult for the readers to get their heads around - and this is certainly true of his latest title Quantum Space, which takes on loop quantum gravity.

As Baggott points out, you could easily think that string theory was the only game in town when it comes to the ultimate challenge in physics, finding a way to unify the currently incompatible general theory of relativity and quantum theory. Between them, these two behemoths of twentieth century physics underlie the vast bulk of physics very well - but they simply can't be put together. String theory (and its big brother M-theory, which as Baggott points out, is not actually a the…

Beyond Weird - Philip Ball *****

It would be easy to think 'Surely we don't need another book on quantum physics.' There are loads of them. Anyone should be happy with The Quantum Age on applications and the basics, Cracking Quantum Physics for an illustrated introduction or In Search of Schrödinger's Cat for classic history of science coverage. Don't be fooled, though - because in Beyond Weird, Philip Ball has done something rare in my experience until Quantum Sense and Nonsense came along. It makes an attempt not to describe quantum physics, but to explain why it is the way it is.

Historically this has rarely happened. It's true that physicists have come up with various interpretations of quantum physics, but these are designed as technical mechanisms to bridge the gap between theory and the world as we see it, rather than explanations that would make sense to the ordinary reader.

Ball does not ignore the interpretations, though he clearly isn't happy with any of them. He seems to come clo…

Everything You Know About Planet Earth is Wrong - Matt Brown ****

This is the latest of a series of 'Everything You Know About... is Wrong' books from Matt Brown. Although I always feel slightly hard done by as a result of the assertion in the title, as there are certainly things here I know that aren't wrong (I mean, come on, the first corrected piece of 'knowledge' is that 'The Earth is only 6,000 years old' and I can't imagine many readers will 'know' that), it's a handy format to provide what are often surprisingly little snippets of information that are very handy for 'did you know' conversations down the pub (or showing up your parents if you're a younger reader).

Some of the incorrect statements that head each article are well-covered, if often still believed (for example, people thought that world was flat before Columbus), some are a little tricksy in the wording (such as seas have to wash up against land) and some are just pleasantly surprising (countering the idea that gold is a rar…