WARMINSTER: THE MOVIE

On Saturday 29th August I shall be going over to Warminster, along with Dave Simpson, to do some introductory recording for a little video project we're working on. We're planning to interview people who remember the heyday of Warminster back in the 'sixties and 'seventies: why they were there, what they expected to discover, and what do they think of the experience now.

We probably won't be doing any detailed interviews on Saturday, just a bit of filming for background scene-setting, but we hope to be making contact with anybody we could talk to later. We'll be popping in to the Weird'09 conference that's on over the weekend, so might bump into a few old Warminster 'faces' there, and will be up on Cradle Hill for the planned skywatch later in the evening.

Any Magonia blogsters who are at the conference or on the Hill, please make yourself known, and anyone who would like to talk, on camera, about their memories of the Warminster experience in the great days, please contact me at johnrimmer@rocketmail.com.

KEEL OR HALL: A NATIONS DECIDES

Peter Brookesmith explains to readers of the UfologyinUK mailing list why he voted for John Keel in the Magonia poll:

"I just came back from a visit to the New Model Ufologist's blog and voted for John Keel as the greater contributor to ufology than Dick Hall (the Ufologist's Philosopher).

"Actually, I think Keel wrote huge tracts of illogical and ill-founded, evidence-free, but entertaining crap about UFOs. He also, however, had one of the better stabs at explaining "Roswell" plausibly before we knew what we now know about Mogul, etc. (He thought it was a Fu-Go balloon.)

"So there is Keel, a purveyor of a morass of both admitted fiction and reasonable inference, with the occasional fact sticking out of the dross like a white lighthouse in the middle of the Sargasso, along with some very illogical and eccentric conclusions about the phenomenon; and then there is Hall, Philosophy BA c.1954, a sedulous and even obsessive collector of UFO reports over virtually the lifetime of the phenomenon, foe of the unsubstantiated inference, friend and evangelist of science, and (without noticing the contradictions) devotee of the ETH and much abduction lore. And I choose Keel.

"Well, yes. The description of Keel's productions above could as well stand as a description of ufology from about 1951 to the present. Now this is a wafer that sticks in the craw of those who think that there is some kind of real ufology and a kind of false one (the latter represented by Adamski, Creighton, Cooper & Lear, Shuttleworth et al), and that the real ufology will in due course be an embarrassment to "science" when it's realized that chaps like Hynek, Hall, Hopkins, Harris et al were on to something after all. But ufology is ufology, just as English tennis is everything from Andy Murray to half-competents knocking balls about on the courts in Norland Square W11 on a warm and dusty Friday night in summer. I see no way of disentangling these threads.

"Both Hall and Keel contributed much to the UFO myth but Keel did a better job as a mythopoeist (or mythochreiast) than Hall. This says nothing negative or positive about either of them, unless you're a witch-hunting super-rationalist CSI/CSICOP inquisitor busy missing the whole point of the exercise. Or perhaps Dick Hall."

If you have voted in the poll, perhaps you might let us know how you voted and your reasons for doing so. Just click on ''Comments' at the foot of this post.

THE PELICAN WRITES ...

We are happy to announce the return of The Pelican from his migration. We hope that he will again be a regular visitor to these shores.

One of the mysteries of ufology, it seems to The Pelican, is what is known as disinformation and the reactions of many ufologists to it. Some of the disinformation appears to be aimed at the news media rather than ufologists and has a certain superficial plausibility, but much of it is, so absurd that it is a wonder that anyone takes it seriously and apparently finds it worthwhile to discuss and investigate it, except perhaps as examples of modem folklore. The Pelican, of course, does not take it seriously but merely finds it mildly amusing.

The most puzzling kind of disinformation is that which appears to come from official sources, notably the US Air Force. This is just as implausible, or even more so, than that produced by those who do it just for fun, or to get invited to the numerous UFO conferences.

Now, many ufologists have reasons for spreading disinformation. Some believe that the UFOs are alien spacecraft and they want to convince others, so they add details to UFO reports to make them more interesting and exotic, or they suppress details which suggest mundane explanations. Others exploit ufology for its entertainment value and have few scruples about attempting to pass off faked photographs and documents as genuine. Some of these people try to make themselves seem more impressive by lying about their military service, academic and professional qualifications.

However, when government officials give out false information about UFOs, one should expect that there are rational reasons for it. For example, when a nation is at war, false information is fed to the enemy concerning what their forces plan to do next. It is easy to find many examples in military history and there is no difficulty in understanding the reasons for such actions.

What, then, asks The Pelican, are the rational reasons for the actions of Richard C. Doty, who was a sergeant in the US Air Force, serving in their Office of Special Investigations at Kirtland AFB, and who, in retirement, is apparently still active in spreading UFO disinformation.

Doty's disinformation is quite unlike other misleading pronouncements from the military in that it lacks the essential quality of seeming to be plausible. In other words, it just doesn't make sense. There is no need for The Pelican to go into detail about it, as it must already be familiar to most of his readers. (Those who would like to know more about it can easily find the information in numerous UFO books and on the Internet.)

This is what is so puzzling. What is the point of disinformation which is so utterly absurd that no sane person is likely to believe it? For instance, Doty had become known for his interest in UFO reports, and it was entirely reasonable and relevant to his work that he should spend some time investigating any which seemed to involve the US Air Force. However, when Linda Moulton Howe (who surely needs no introduction) went to see Doty seeking information for a proposed TV documentary to be titled UFOs: The ET Factor, he showed her what purported to be a briefing paper for the President of the United States giving details of UFO crashes, living and dead aliens, details about the planet they came from, etc. He also gave her lots of other details.

The Pelican, having some grasp - however precarious - on sanity, does not believe a word of the yarns told by Doty to Howe and others. Surely no one in their right mind could believe any of his nonsense? It is likely, of course that some pretend to believe them because they are aware of their entertainment value. This might indeed be Howe's motive for apparently taking Doty's nonsense seriously, but some ufologists assert that she is just extremely credulous. Unlike some commentators, The Pelican also finds it hard to believe that Doty plied ufologists and others with incredible yarns and fake documents without the knowledge or approval of his superiors.

So what is going on here? What is the point of disinformation which is unlikely to be believed by anyone with any grasp on reality? Why was he allowed, or even encouraged, to do this?

The Pelican has carried out a simple thought experiment. He has tried to imagine an NCO in the Royal Air Force inviting ufologists to his office at an RAF station and behaving like Doty, by showing them fake documents and telling absurd yarns about space aliens, unsupported by any evidence.

The Pelican's attempts to imagine this scenario have failed.

DEALING WITH DAWKINS

Fern Elsdon-Baker. The Selfish Genius: How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin's Legacy. Icon Books, 2009.

Fern Elsdon-Baker believes that Richard Dawkins has "effectively hijacked Darwin and distorted his legacy to champion an inflexible approach that gives the public a very one-sided view of what's really going on in evolutionary science". She has no quarrel with his atheism, as she also proclaims herself to be an atheist.

She is, however, concerned not only about the dogmatic and aggressive manner with which he promotes his atheism, but also with his views on science, scientific truth and the function of science in society.

Concerning Dawkins's "selfish gene" description of evolution, Elsdon-Baker considers it over-simplified and misleading in the light of recent discoveries in biology, although readers who consult the blogs used by Dawkins's admirers will find that they believe that their man is practically infallible in matters of science, and in almost everything else as well.

In her comments about Dawkins's and other scientists' treatment of the history of science, she identifies a common fault - the tendency to judge past actions by modern standards, the 'Whiggish' approach to history - a tendency to judge past actions in the light of modern knowledge instead of in the context of what was known or believed at the time. Some who opposed the theory of natural selection were said to be stupid for apparently failing to understand it, although in Darwin's time the Earth was thought to be much younger than it is at present estimated to be, thus leaving little time for evolution to take place.

Unlike Dawkins, Elsdon-Baker does not see that science and religion are necessarily in conflict. After all, mainstream religions did not take long to accept the general idea of evolution. She remarks: "As enticing as it might be to claim science for atheism, this stance could ultimately undermine 'science' in the public perception by reaching beyond what are commonly accepted to be its parameters". She also objects to Dawkins's tendency to portray religion in its more extreme manifestations, rather than mainstream religious activity.

Most criticisms of Dawkins are about his views on religion, but this one covers a wider range and has already enraged those who consider him a kind of Mr Toad character who knows everything worth knowing. -- John Harney