What do you think?
Rate this book
Search for the Unknown: Canada’s UFO Files and the Rise of Conspiracy Theory
Beginning in the 1950s, alleged sightings of unidentified flying objects in Canadian skies bred tension between the state and its citizens. While the public demanded to know more about the phenomenon, government officials appeared unconcerned and unresponsive. Suspicion of government deepened among certain sectors of Canadian society in the decades that followed, leading to demands for greater public transparency and a new kind of citizen activism.In Search for the Unknown Matthew Hayes uncovers the history of the Canadian government’s investigations into reports of UFOs, revealing how these reports were handled, deflected, and defended from 1950 to the 1990s. During this period Canadians filed more than 5,000 reports of UFO sightings – many with striking descriptions and illustrations – with branches of government and law enforcement. Although the government conducted some exploratory studies, officials were unable to solve the mystery of UFOs or provide satisfactory answers about their alleged existence, and they soon declared the matter closed. Dissatisfied citizens responded by taking matters into their own hands, starting UFO clubs and civilian investigation groups, and accusing the government of a cover-up. A mutual mistrust developed between citizens who were suspicious of their government and officials who dismissed their fears and anxieties. This provided fertile ground for anti-authoritarian attitudes and the cultivation of conspiracy theories.In an era of political division, and amid heightened awareness of states’ responsibilities for their citizens, Search for the Unknown reveals the challenges that governments face in responding to public anxieties and preserving trust in public institutions.
- GenresCanada
248 pages, Hardcover
Published April 15, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 28, 2022
This was a history I was vaguely aware of, but more from the American context - Roswell, Area 51, etc. In Matt's research and writing, bringing the reader through the history, historical context and events up to the present I learned a tremendous amount about the Canadian side of the story.
January 31, 2023
my thoughts about this book are all over the place, so i'm going to write this as a list of general and specific things i noticed rather than trying to make it into a cohesive review. sorry if it's disorganized. maybe i'll organize it later, maybe not.
-the way he describes belief in ufos frequently comes across as condescending. at points it seems like he's more focused on convincing you how silly the concept is rather than simply presenting evidence or explaining their history. take this sentence from the introduction, for instance: The contemporary "disclosure" movement is predicated on the idea that the US government is hiding the "Truth." whoa! two scare quotations, plus a sarcastic use of capitalization, all in one sentence, all within five pages of starting reading! the scare quotes around disclosure don't even make sense. he doesn't use them again around that word in the rest of the book, so it isn't clear why he chose to here. this kind of writing does not make a reader confident that the authors position is that well supported.
-i really like the drawings at the beginning of the book. i'm thinking i'll cut them out and pin them on a cork-board with string running between the pins. that's always been a dream of mine.
-many times, after giving a quote, he will say something along the lines of "Clearly, this was referring to x and not y" or "Obviously, they did not mean z." the problem is that it's not obvious or clear that those quotes mean what he says they mean. if it was obvious, then why would he have to say it? one example that stood out to me in particular was in the section discussing project magnet. smith, who headed this project, was described by a colleague after it was closed as still having a good reputation within the government. hayes goes on to say something along the lines of "It can be assumed he was referring to Smiths other projects and not his involvement in UFO research." i mean, is that obvious? if i had a colleague that was convinced mermaids were real and did extensive studies trying to prove it, and then someone asked me what their reputation was--would it be unreasonable to assume that my response might take into account their bizarre and generally unaccepted work? another example: when someone within the government condemned how government departments tasked with UFO research blatantly did not take an objective approach and performed "research" only to the extent of confirming their pre-existing belief, hayes wrote "One could say that Ross was not overly concerned with UFOs per se but rather indignant that a publicly funded institution such as the NRC would shirk its responsibilities, whatever they were." what? i mean, one could say that, but there's nothing in the quote itself that said or implied that that is what he meant. i mean, he mentioned ufos and the failure of the nrc with regard to ufos specifically. why would you assume he was referring to anything other than what he said?
-the way the canadian government is described in this book is unintentionally really funny. when trying to explain why the government would fund the ufo research project project magnet, he essentially says that they were tricked into it. i dunno. i really like the idea of someone at the department of finance being like ah fuck lads, who added ufos to the budget.
-speaking of the canadian government, the motivations given for their behaviour are sometimes contradictory. at one point they're presented as valiantly trying to rid the population of superstition, and then on the literal next page it's mentioned that citizen investigators were not able to access documentation about ufos from the government. how would not showing people facts that would dispel their superstitions help dispel their superstitions? that's left unclear.
-i do think, however, that the general premise of this book is correct. it's much more likely that the ufo coverup is not a coverup in the true sense of the word, but more the result of the government not having any idea what to do. ufos, by their nature, are difficult (impossible?) to quantify or study in the normal way. you can't exactly make a ufo show up and then perform experiments on it. so what can you do other than shrug and move on with other, earthly concerns? at some point even disclosure becomes pointless. the general consensus now seems to be something like this: 95% of ufo sightings can be explained with normal occurrences like meteors, airplanes, or weather, or do not have enough information to decide either way. 5% of ufo sightings have both enough evidence that they should be able to be explained, and yet all feasible explanations can be ruled out. sometimes, those 5% of unexplained sightings have extraordinary features and appear to be under intelligent control. that's all really cool, but where do you go from there? what do you do with that, if you're a government? you can't reliably make those 5% of sightings reoccur and you can't stop them from occurring, either. there's also a political argument for why governments might prefer to just ignore the ufo question that's talked about in the article "sovereignty and the UFO." the existence of unexplained yet seemingly intelligent phenomena threatens a nations ability to appear in control of their own land in a very fundamental way. so if you can't study them and you can't stop them, what's even the point? you can explain the governments wishy-washy explanations and apparent secrecy without needing to believe in some extreme conspiracy. there doesn't have to be a coverup. the simplest explanation is usually the right one, and the simplest one in this situation is that there's no benefit for a government to actively tackle the ufo question and no ability to get answers either way, so they just don't. i think this possibility is sadly ignored by a lot of books on the subject, who assume that there MUST be a grand conspiracy, especially after so many governments have admitted that ufos exist yet still do not seem to take them seriously. there doesn't have to be a conspiracy to explain this. studying ufos doesn't help the government, so they don't really care to study them. simple as.
-i thought until the very end that the author was a total disbeliever, but on the last page he admits that he's more agnostic about the topic, saying that he doesn't know the answer (and that there might not ever be a clear answer) as opposed to saying that he is absolutely convinced they aren't real. that was kinda nice.
if you've read this far, you might wonder why i've still given this book 4/5 stars when so much of my list is negative. there are two reasons for this. first, the book is about an under discussed topic (ufos outside of anywhere except america) and is extremely well cited, so it's invaluable resource regardless of any issues i, personally, had with it. there are lots of specific archives and books mentioned without even needing to go into the citations, too. i think this is a great starting point for further research into the ufo phenomenon in canada. second, i have to recognize my own bias. i am absolutely convinced of the reality of ufos and maybe 95-99% convinced they are extraterrestrial. that means i'm going to pick up on problems with a skeptical book more quickly and more frequently than i would with a book that confirms what i already think. it's probably the case that any other book i've read on the subject has similar flaws that i just did not notice because i was not primed to look for them. that, combined with how fantastic of a resource it is, makes me hesitant to give it anything below 4 stars. i don't think it would be fair to give a rating that in any way suggests this book is "bad." it's not. i really liked it. i just also found it frustrating.
-the way he describes belief in ufos frequently comes across as condescending. at points it seems like he's more focused on convincing you how silly the concept is rather than simply presenting evidence or explaining their history. take this sentence from the introduction, for instance: The contemporary "disclosure" movement is predicated on the idea that the US government is hiding the "Truth." whoa! two scare quotations, plus a sarcastic use of capitalization, all in one sentence, all within five pages of starting reading! the scare quotes around disclosure don't even make sense. he doesn't use them again around that word in the rest of the book, so it isn't clear why he chose to here. this kind of writing does not make a reader confident that the authors position is that well supported.
-i really like the drawings at the beginning of the book. i'm thinking i'll cut them out and pin them on a cork-board with string running between the pins. that's always been a dream of mine.
-many times, after giving a quote, he will say something along the lines of "Clearly, this was referring to x and not y" or "Obviously, they did not mean z." the problem is that it's not obvious or clear that those quotes mean what he says they mean. if it was obvious, then why would he have to say it? one example that stood out to me in particular was in the section discussing project magnet. smith, who headed this project, was described by a colleague after it was closed as still having a good reputation within the government. hayes goes on to say something along the lines of "It can be assumed he was referring to Smiths other projects and not his involvement in UFO research." i mean, is that obvious? if i had a colleague that was convinced mermaids were real and did extensive studies trying to prove it, and then someone asked me what their reputation was--would it be unreasonable to assume that my response might take into account their bizarre and generally unaccepted work? another example: when someone within the government condemned how government departments tasked with UFO research blatantly did not take an objective approach and performed "research" only to the extent of confirming their pre-existing belief, hayes wrote "One could say that Ross was not overly concerned with UFOs per se but rather indignant that a publicly funded institution such as the NRC would shirk its responsibilities, whatever they were." what? i mean, one could say that, but there's nothing in the quote itself that said or implied that that is what he meant. i mean, he mentioned ufos and the failure of the nrc with regard to ufos specifically. why would you assume he was referring to anything other than what he said?
-the way the canadian government is described in this book is unintentionally really funny. when trying to explain why the government would fund the ufo research project project magnet, he essentially says that they were tricked into it. i dunno. i really like the idea of someone at the department of finance being like ah fuck lads, who added ufos to the budget.
-speaking of the canadian government, the motivations given for their behaviour are sometimes contradictory. at one point they're presented as valiantly trying to rid the population of superstition, and then on the literal next page it's mentioned that citizen investigators were not able to access documentation about ufos from the government. how would not showing people facts that would dispel their superstitions help dispel their superstitions? that's left unclear.
-i do think, however, that the general premise of this book is correct. it's much more likely that the ufo coverup is not a coverup in the true sense of the word, but more the result of the government not having any idea what to do. ufos, by their nature, are difficult (impossible?) to quantify or study in the normal way. you can't exactly make a ufo show up and then perform experiments on it. so what can you do other than shrug and move on with other, earthly concerns? at some point even disclosure becomes pointless. the general consensus now seems to be something like this: 95% of ufo sightings can be explained with normal occurrences like meteors, airplanes, or weather, or do not have enough information to decide either way. 5% of ufo sightings have both enough evidence that they should be able to be explained, and yet all feasible explanations can be ruled out. sometimes, those 5% of unexplained sightings have extraordinary features and appear to be under intelligent control. that's all really cool, but where do you go from there? what do you do with that, if you're a government? you can't reliably make those 5% of sightings reoccur and you can't stop them from occurring, either. there's also a political argument for why governments might prefer to just ignore the ufo question that's talked about in the article "sovereignty and the UFO." the existence of unexplained yet seemingly intelligent phenomena threatens a nations ability to appear in control of their own land in a very fundamental way. so if you can't study them and you can't stop them, what's even the point? you can explain the governments wishy-washy explanations and apparent secrecy without needing to believe in some extreme conspiracy. there doesn't have to be a coverup. the simplest explanation is usually the right one, and the simplest one in this situation is that there's no benefit for a government to actively tackle the ufo question and no ability to get answers either way, so they just don't. i think this possibility is sadly ignored by a lot of books on the subject, who assume that there MUST be a grand conspiracy, especially after so many governments have admitted that ufos exist yet still do not seem to take them seriously. there doesn't have to be a conspiracy to explain this. studying ufos doesn't help the government, so they don't really care to study them. simple as.
-i thought until the very end that the author was a total disbeliever, but on the last page he admits that he's more agnostic about the topic, saying that he doesn't know the answer (and that there might not ever be a clear answer) as opposed to saying that he is absolutely convinced they aren't real. that was kinda nice.
if you've read this far, you might wonder why i've still given this book 4/5 stars when so much of my list is negative. there are two reasons for this. first, the book is about an under discussed topic (ufos outside of anywhere except america) and is extremely well cited, so it's invaluable resource regardless of any issues i, personally, had with it. there are lots of specific archives and books mentioned without even needing to go into the citations, too. i think this is a great starting point for further research into the ufo phenomenon in canada. second, i have to recognize my own bias. i am absolutely convinced of the reality of ufos and maybe 95-99% convinced they are extraterrestrial. that means i'm going to pick up on problems with a skeptical book more quickly and more frequently than i would with a book that confirms what i already think. it's probably the case that any other book i've read on the subject has similar flaws that i just did not notice because i was not primed to look for them. that, combined with how fantastic of a resource it is, makes me hesitant to give it anything below 4 stars. i don't think it would be fair to give a rating that in any way suggests this book is "bad." it's not. i really liked it. i just also found it frustrating.
November 7, 2022
It shouldn’t surprise me how incompetent the Canadian Government (I am Canadian) was and still is with its UFO investigations. Yes, a lot can be explained, but what about reports that clearly show it can be explained. People were belittled and ostracized. I hope things change, but I doubt it.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews