Leslie Kean: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record (new book)

Hi Kandinsky, I did listen to it and found it an interesting interview, but despite he mentioned indeed that human time-travelling issue which he had said during his hypnosis session as is to see here

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4c1be7ac070.jpg[/atsimg]

I do not think that he committed credibility suicide because you must take in consideration that Time traveling is theoretical a possibility.

Geüpload door TheCircuitMojoHD op 25 mei 2008
Fascinating interview with Michio Kaku.

Speaking about his new book "Physics of the Impossible," Dr. Kaku explains with how Physics one day may allow us to go back in time.

Therefore I see no reason for why Kean must cut him loose.

For some reason I did not hear him saying that the future of mankind could be in his hands?

reply to post by spacevisitor
Space please! Think about it.

He used to say he didn't know what the binary code meant. In this interview he says he always knew what it meant.

He says the the object was on a mission to tell only him about some great plan. Joiner asks him why it was supposedly gonna be at the coordinates underneath the Atlantic Ocean? He stutters and makes out it was a change of plan and it relocated to where he was at Rendleshem.

He never mentioned binary codes after the event and in the interview mentions that there are now more.

He talks about how he is the defining figure in some grand plan for humanity and the object has given him details that hasn't yet revealed.

If none of that strikes you as fabrication after the fact, let me put it another way. Given the strong credibility of people like Parvez, de Brouwer and Captain Julio Miguel Guerra does she need the input of a man who has changed his story many times and promises to change it again?

Wouldn't she be better off to focus on the safe and steady witnesses? Does she really need to include Penniston? Have any of the other witnesses changed their story over and over?! In real life, if you've ever known someone who constantly makes themselves more important by telling stories where they are the central figure...you know they are lying.

If I wanted to 'debunk' Kean, I would attack the hell out of Penniston's testimony and motives. Then I'd point out his involvement with Linda Moulton-Howe and that she's backed every hoaxer for years. Right now she's promoting the Drones Hoax as being genuine when they've been proven to be CGI. I'd question her judgement to back Penniston and suggest the lack of judgement means the rest of the testimony is unreliable.

You've been around and should know that this is how it works. Attacking the credibility of people is standard procedure. Penniston is the straggler in the herd and they'll eat him alive.

I can think of two dozen ufologists and commentators who feel the same way and would recommend cutting him out. He's like Cliff Stone in the Disclosure Project, instead of laughing at '57 aliens' people will laugh at Penniston's 'magic notebook.'

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Space please! Think about it.

Hiya Kandinsky, I won’t use this as any excuse for how I interpreted of what is said but it is really too bad that I cannot listen to such interviews in the Dutch language because it would be so much easier for me to follow and understand exactly what is said.
I assume there is no transcript of this interview so I go listen to it again and make some notes of what I think he said precisely in order to see if my first impression was correct or not.
However, it will take some time.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If I wanted to 'debunk' Kean,

I am sure that that is not your intention.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
You've been around and should know that this is how it works. Attacking the credibility of people is standard procedure.

Yes I know that that is indeed standard procedure.

Leslie Kean Tonight on CNN Headline News with Nick Pope, Fife Symington, and James Fox

Source: www.facebook.com...

I just taped a very interesting show on CNN Headline News, along with Nick Pope, Fife Symington, and James Fox. It will be aired Wednesday at 10 pm EST, with host Don Lemon who is filling in for Joy Behar. Please tune in! Remember, this is not CNN, but it's CNN headline News, a different channel.

Created By Leslie Kean

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Space please! Think about it.

Hi Kandinsky , I did again listen to that interview as I said I would do, so here is my opinion.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He used to say he didn't know what the binary code meant. In this interview he says he always knew what it meant.

I think you heard that wrong, I heard him saying that he always knew it was a code, he did not said that he always knew what it meant.
However, he said later on that he knew that it was a probe and he knew that they were us and time travelers and that he knew that for thirty years.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He says the object was on a mission to tell only him about some great plan. Joiner asks him why it was supposedly gonna be at the coordinates underneath the Atlantic Ocean? He stutters and makes out it was a change of plan and it relocated to where he was at Rendleshem.

I think that this has all to do with what you said about the phenomenon in your last U2U.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He never mentioned binary codes after the event and in the interview mentions that there are now more.

He always thought that the code itself was gibberish, so he didn’t spoke earlier about it until it came out again during his hypnosis session in 1994.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He talks about how he is the defining figure in some grand plan for humanity and the object has given him details that hasn't yet revealed.

I think that this has also all to do with what you said about the phenomenon in your last U2U.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Wouldn't she be better off to focus on the safe and steady witnesses? Does she really need to include Penniston?

Yes because I think that Jim Penniston and also John Burroughs are two very important key witnesses of this case.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Have any of the other witnesses changed their story over and over?! In real life, if you've ever known someone who constantly makes themselves more important by telling stories where they are the central figure...you know they are lying.

I do not agree with you that he changed his story over and over again during all these years, perhaps he said some things a bit differently now and then.
I think you must not forget that his experience must have been no doubt really shocking and mind-blowing, very difficult to deal with indeed, and that he is surely not a professional as for example a Nick Pope is in this line of work and interviews.
Listen in this interview how he speaks about it all gives me personally still the strong impression that he is very sincere.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
You've been around and should know that this is how it works. Attacking the credibility of people is standard procedure. Penniston is the straggler in the herd and they'll eat him alive.

As I said earlier I know that attacking the credibility of people is standard procedure.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I can think of two dozen ufologists and commentators who feel the same way and would recommend cutting him out.

Could be, I assume then that if those same ufologists also would believe what the former base commander of Bentwaters/Woodbridge Col Conrad has said about Lt Col Charles Halt as you can read here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they would also cut Lt Col Charles Halt out.
Would you agree with that also?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He's like Cliff Stone in the Disclosure Project, instead of laughing at '57 aliens' people will laugh at Penniston's 'magic notebook.'

I have no problem whatsoever when people disbelieve and laughing at Clifford Stone’s '57 aliens' I assume they are fully going for Stephen Hawking’s views about aliens.

I also have no problem whatsoever when people are laughing at Penniston's 'magic notebook', I assume they are going rather for that 'magic lighthouse’ explanation.

reply to post by spacevisitor
Hiya Space. We'll have to disagree on Penniston. I sincerely believe he's elaborating his account for reasons of attention and a possible profit in the future if his story is believed. Not only that, I believe LMH is a canary in the coalmine for hoaxes and hoaxers.

You know some of private thoughts and speculations about aspects of the UFO phenomena. They aren't changed by Penniston.

I appreciate that you've used your own judgement and genuinely made the attempt to check if my opinion resonates with yours. Vive le difference!

IMHO Jim Oberg is one of the best UAP sceptibunkers there's ever been. He knows his stuff, and it's therefore no surprise that he can easily score points against journalist Leslie Kean, and her curate's egg of a book. In just such a way expert Jim McDonald scored again and again against sceptibunker journalist Phil Klass.

For example, Kean did not have the time to go deeply enough into the Rendlesham case, and evidently did not discover the many problems there. The same applies to JAL 1628. And so on.

Jim's failure - and it's a colossal one - has been to ignore the best papers studying UAP's, some of which Kean discusses or refers to in her book. For example:

www.narcap.org...

and, probably not known to Kean:

www.cobeps.org...

The latter is in French, but English-speaking monolinguists should get the gist.

If Jim could seriously dent either of these papers, I would certainly consider changing my views on UAPs.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Hiya Space.

Hi Kandinsky, thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
We'll have to disagree on Penniston. I sincerely believe he's elaborating his account for reasons of attention and a possible profit in the future if his story is believed.

Not only that, I believe LMH is a canary in the coalmine for hoaxes and hoaxers.

It is clear that our views on these points are really quite different.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

You know some of private thoughts and speculations about aspects of the UFO phenomena. They aren't changed by Penniston.

Some of our private thoughts and speculations about aspects of the UFO phenomena are indeed not changed by Penniston, but I really think that in the end, when we would lay all our views and speculations regarding the UFO phenomena on the table we will realize that most of them are in fact very different indeed my friend.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I appreciate that you've used your own judgement and genuinely made the attempt to check if my opinion resonates with yours.

I really appreciate that despite my opinion does not always resonate with yours you take the time to respond.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Vive le difference!

Je suis d'accord avec vous.

reply to post by spacevisitor
I always stop by and read your posts when I see your avatar. It's a good thing to keep the acquaintance of people whom we don't always agree with because it makes us think about our own views.

It's also good to agree and disagree on friendly terms without the drama. You are probably one of the more diplomatic and amenable members on ATS where that is concerned.

Here is the podcast page for the latest interview (where you can also listen online) with Leslie Kean that will be broadcast on December 11, 2011 on National Public Radio:
ttbook.org...

Direct download link for audio:
ttbook.org...

The name of the NPR's show is "The Best of our Knowledge".

Official intro of the show:
"Leslie Kean on UFOs
Investigative journalist Leslie Kean talks to Jim Fleming about her book,
"UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record."

Best Wishes.

uforadio
ufoprintclip.x10.mx...