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:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...