Leslie Kean on UFOs.

Following on from this mighty fine thread...


Michio Kaku comments UFOs and Leslie Kean's book - Aug 23, 2010


..here's a good interview with the author of 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record' and she makes some interesting comments about attitudes towards the UFO subject within the corporate media - there's also some pretty astute points made about the definition of the term 'UFO', UFO 'debunkers', UFO report percentages and UFO government documentation.

Interview starts around 8:00

For ten years, investigative journalist LESLIE KEAN conducted a study of this still unexplained 5 percent. She reviewed hundreds of U.S. government documents, aviation reports and radar data. She carefully examined official case studies with corroborating physical evidence and scientifically analyzed photographs.

Continued

reply to post by karl 12


I believe that governments around the world take this subject very seriously. I mean, how can they not, considering all the militery sightings that have happened around the world, let alone the thousands of other sightings worldwide.

The sad fact of the matter is, we have hardcore de-bunkers, and hardcore believers, who both make the subject a joke. But if you step back from all that rubbish, and actually look at the good unexplained cases, without the believer or de-bunker beliefs, then the only assumption you can come up with is that something unexplained in flying in our air-space.

reply to post by Jay-morris


Hi Jay-morris, thanks for the reply and I can't realy disagree with anything you've said there mate - some of the objects described in official documentation sound very strange indeed and I'm sure you're right about governments treating the subject seriously.

Here's what the first Director of the CIA had to say about it:

"It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings. Behind the scenes high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense."

Admiral Hillenkoetter-the first Director of the CIA, 1947-50.
February 27, 1960.

UFO Statements

Objects:

Gov Docs.

"It looked to be about 2000 feet in the air and a white-silverish looking colour -rotating in a counter clockwise manner. It was round in shape and going in a rather fast motion".
Doc




“Object described as flat on top and bottom and appearing from a front view to have rounded edges and slightly beveled. From view as object dived from top of plane was completely round and spinning in clockwise direction.... Object did not appear to be aluminum. Only 1 object observed. Solar white. No vapor trails or exhaust or visible system of propulsion. Described as traveling at tremendous speed".
Doc




"Objects being described as "25 yards in diameter, gold or silver in color with blue light on top, hole in middle, and red light on bottom".
Doc




"DURING THE FOURTH MINS OF OBSERVATION A BLUISH GREEN BEAM OF LIGHT APPEARED FROM THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE CONFIGURATION, EXTENDING OUTWARD AND DOWNWARD TO THE LEFT AT AN ANGLE OF APPROX 45 DEGREES, AND REACHING TO THE FADE OUT POINT OF THE RADIATING RINGS OF LIGHT. APPROX FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE BLUISH-GREEN BEAM (SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE TO A SEARCHLIGHT BEAM), THE RADIATIVE CIRCLES OF LIGHT DISAPPEARED, LEAVING ONLY THE CORE OF LIGHT AND THE COLORED BEAM".
Doc




"There were bright objects hanging over the sea.The closest object was luminous, round and four to five times larger than a Whirlwind helicopter.
The objects separated. Then one went west of the other, as it manoeuvred it changed shape to become body-shaped with projections like arms and legs".
Doc




"THEY WATCHED THE OBJECTS FOR APPROX. 1 HOUR BEFORE REPORTNG THAT THE LARGE OBJECT WAS ALMOST ON THE ICE. THEY REPORTED THAT THE ICE WAS CRACKING AND MOVING ABNORMAL AMOUNTS AS THE OBJECT CAME CLOSER TO IT. THE ICE WAS RUMBLING AND THE OBJECT LIT MULTI-COLOR LIGHTS AT EACH END AS IT APPARENTLY LANDED".
Doc




“...pilot of helicopter wished to stress fact that the object was of a saucer-like nature, was stationary at 2000 ft. And would be glad to be called upon to verify any statement and act as witness.”
Doc

Thread

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


There is something there, no one can deny that. I am half way through Leslie Kean's book. I know all of the cases in that book, but its great to have these cases altogether. I wish people would put all their effort into these type of sightings, rather than believe in the meier's of this world

But like i said before, with all the great militery sightings, i find it hard to believe that governments around the world just decided to ignore them. That just does not make sense to me

Originally posted by Jay-morris
I wish people would put all their effort into these type of sightings, rather than believe in the meier's of this world

Hey mate, couldn't agree more with you there - it seems genuinely puzzling incidents oftentimes get overlooked in favour of the more 'questionable' ones and cases like the Shag Harbour incident, the Coyne incident, the Bariloche incident, the Colares incident, the Minot AFB incident etc.. certainly deserve to be looked at more closely by people who just pour scorn and derision onto the UFO subject - I think one of my favourite cases (and threads) on these boards has to be the Portage County incident from 1966 - the case has got a great many intriguing aspects to it so it's a shame that many folks out there haven't even heard of it:


*Above BlueBook* - Ohio UFO Chase , Portage County April 17, 1966

Originally posted by Jay-morris
But like i said before, with all the great militery sightings, i find it hard to believe that governments around the world just decided to ignore them. That just does not make sense to me

No, it doesn't make sense to me (or a lot of other people) either - there's a good presentation here with John Greenewald Junior discussing government attitudes towards the subject but apparently when it comes to the release of government documents pertaining to UFOs, the U.S. Supreme Court has arrived at quite a simple conclusion:

'the continued need for secrecy far out weighs the public's right to know.'

In 1977 New York attorney Peter A. Gersten brought suit in the US District Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of Ground Saucer Watch, an Arizona based UFO organization. The lawsuit was against the Central Intelligence Agency pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Gersten demanded the release of classified UFO related documents. Pursuant to the lawsuit, the CIA in 1979 released over 900 pages of documents relating to the UFO phenomenon. But they refused to release 57 documents, claiming national security considerations.

On June 24,1980 Gersten brought suit in the same District Court against the National Security Agency but this time on behalf of his own recently formed organization, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS). His objective was 135 UFO related documents the NCI had refused to release. On November 18, 1980, based upon a NSA top secret affidavit which Gersten was not allowed to see, US District Court Judge Gerhard A. Gesell dismissed the lawsuit stating that 'the continued need for secrecy far out weighed the public's right to know.'

link

Cheers.

Leslie Kean states in her new book:

"A second fundamentally important point is that roughly 90 to 95 percent of UFO sightings can be explained."

Leslie Kean

Isn't the unexplained rate more like twenty to thirty per-cent - and that's not even taking into account where the government has just 'made the explanations up' (link).

."The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980



"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Redbook, vol. 143)
Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned Anthropologist

Clinton White House Chief John Podesta talking about UFOs and Leslie Kean's new book:

National Press Club

Book:

"It is definitely time for government, scientists, and aviation experts to work together in unraveling the questions about UFOs that have so far remained in the dark. It's time to find out what the truth really is that's out there. The American people—and people around the world—want to know, and they can handle the truth. 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record' represents a pivotal step in that direction, laying the groundwork for a new way forward"

John Podesta

I have read this book. The Belgium sighting are ASTOUNDING. I feel like, for some reason, the US government is the only one NOT investigating these claims or publicizing their findings. This gives me a feeling that we are responsible for them...

We're discussing one of Kean's favorite types of cases -- pilots and radar/EM effects -- over at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Come on over and see where the investigation leads.

Originally posted by karl 12
Following on from this mighty fine thread...


Michio Kaku comments UFOs and Leslie Kean's book - Aug 23, 2010


..here's a good interview with the author of 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record'

Cool, thanks for that. I just put her book on my Kindle last night but haven't started it yet.

I enjoyed Leslie's book, I can't remember if I finished it or not, will have to check. LOL

for the radio whistling host, good grief batman! 11 minutes of pre crap!
The first radio link skip to the 11 minute mark!!

That's just a small rant. I will be back after I listen to the interview and try to block out the hosts talking whistle.

Sounds like an interesting book worth reading, thanks for sharing!

I hadn't seen that video with Michio Kaku before. It's great to hear what such a respectable physicist has to say on the subject of UFO's. Nice to hear he doesn't disregard the subject and is taking it seriously. He wrote some great science books btw who are also worth reading.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
I believe that governments around the world take this subject very seriously. I mean, how can they not, considering all the militery sightings that have happened around the world, let alone the thousands of other sightings worldwide.

There was a Brazilian General (his name escapes me) who made a statement in the 1970's, that all of the governments in the world share data on UFOs.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
There is something there, no one can deny that. I am half way through Leslie Kean's book. I know all of the cases in that book, but its great to have these cases altogether. I wish people would put all their effort into these type of sightings, rather than believe in the meier's of this world

I knew of most of them. But it's nice to get the first hand accounts from the witnesses themselves. Like the pilot in Tehran case.

One UFO event in the book I was not previously aware of was the fighter pilot's encounter in Peru. He kept taking different approach angles and the UFO always managed to evade.

Got to love Karl's threads. He brings the goods with plenty of documentation.

I enjoy the UFO topics on the Veritas show. Mel is a good interviewer and asks intelligent questions.
I listened to all 5 parts. In the beginning of this program, Leslie Kean talks about debunker Oberg's hit piece on the msnbc website, and how she thought she did a good job showing the flaws in his logic.

UFO book based on questionable foundation
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Skeptic misses point behind UFO book
www.msnbc.msn.com...

His comment about the book and how pilots are not reliable observers is an example of textbook debunking. Not once did he mention the word radar. I highly doubt he even read Kean's book. He erroneously quotes Kean, when the attributed quote was from a French official.

Originally posted by Schaden
[Oberg's] comment about the book and how pilots are not reliable observers is an example of textbook debunking. Not once did he mention the word radar. I highly doubt he even read Kean's book. He erroneously quotes Kean, when the attributed quote was from a French official.

Hynek is the expert who pointed out that among different categories of observers, pilots were the most likely to misperceive visual stimuli, particularly of celestial objects. I don't recall I ever said pilots were not 'reliable observers', please cite where you found me making that claim. My view is that all people are prone to occasional misperception, and pilots moreso -- for excellent reasons in their training and experience.

My MSNBC story linked to ten famous "validated" pilot cases that were in my view misperceptions, and it did most certainly mention 'radar'. I guess you never read the piece before criticizing it. Take another look, please.

Kean relied on the French report as a basis of reliable data, and the page on which it is found has her name at the top [at least in the copy of the book that I own, and read]. Still, my oops. The point remains -- she has assumed the class of pilot cases are BETTER than the average >90% misperception rate and has presented these cases as unexplainable after competent investigation.

My point is that, first, such investigation is often absent (I gave examples) and second, solution to a lot of cases depends on dumb luck and accidental discovery of poorly-documented relevant factors [example -- the 1965 Japanese case, including EMI and radar aspects, discussed in a separate thread].

I strive toward criticizing arguments and research quality, not people [but I'm far from perfect in this regard]. Note the titles of the two MSNBC articles cited. One criticizes an argument. The other criticizes a person. How can this encourage independent voices to enter into this debate?

reply to post by Schaden


Hey Schaden, I asked Jim about the true percentage of actual unknowns in this post but he seemed to skip it - I also think Jerry Cohen makes a very good point below:

If you solve 10 million easy cases, but haven't touched the surface of the "real" phenomena (i.e. the true "core " cases), what have you really done?

Link

Cheers.

Originally posted by Anodyne
I hadn't seen that video with Michio Kaku before. It's great to hear what such a respectable physicist has to say on the subject of UFO's. Nice to hear he doesn't disregard the subject and is taking it seriously. He wrote some great science books btw who are also worth reading.

Anodyne, you're right and he's an extrremely clever chap - what he says in this short video certainly had me nodding my head:

Originally posted by mysteryskeptic
for the radio whistling host, good grief batman! 11 minutes of pre crap!
The first radio link skip to the 11 minute mark!!

Hey bud, I did try to put a disclaimer.

Interview starts around 8:00

Cheers.

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Schaden

 

Hey Schaden, I asked Jim about the true percentage of actual unknowns in this post but he seemed to skip it - I also think Jerry Cohen makes a very good point below:

If you solve 10 million easy cases, but haven't touched the surface of the "real" phenomena (i.e. the true "core " cases), what have you really done?

Link

Cheers.

I've heard this before. The inherent fallacy is that cases enshrined in reputable UFO data bases as 'unexplainable', or are highlighted in books by leading ufologists or on televised documentaries, are 'easy' cases -- but only after they have been solved.

It's my solving of many of the genre's favorite cases -- endorsed by supposedly top-notch UFO experts -- that has engendered such shrieking and whining. If they were 'easy', why hadn't any of THEM ever solved them?

[wink]



[chuckle]

Originally posted by karl 12
Hey Schaden, I asked Jim about the true percentage of actual unknowns in this post but he seemed to skip it

I once asked Oberg about Grant Cameron's story - That Cameron had informed Oberg of Daniel Sheehan's experience working with Marcia Smith (apparently a friend of Oberg's) in the pursuit of two research studies pertaining to UFOs and ET lifeforms in the galaxy, commissioned by President Carter.

Marcia Smith worked for the Research Branch of the Library of Congress. After receiving this tip from Cameron, Oberg called Smith to inquire about its veracity. And then following that conversation, he emailed Cameron to ask what he thought of what Smith said to him (Grant Cameron)

Cameron had never been able to get in touch with Smith to confirm the details of Sheehan's story, so he emailed Oberg back and asked him, what did she say ?

Oberg refused to disclose anything to Cameron about his conversation with Smith. I asked him on the forum to confirm Cameron's version of events and for him to share what Smith had told him about her work with Daniel Sheehan and the Library of Congress research dept's efforts to study classified aspects of Project Blue Book data and the preparation of two research papers for the Carter White House.

For the benefit of the reader, Sheehan claims he saw microfilm of a crashed flying saucer in the snow, surrounded by personnel in US military uniforms. There were detailed close up photos showing a strange font on the side of the craft. Sheehan was given temporary access to this information in the basement of the Library of Congress, due to Smith's connections and authority, acting on behalf of a request from the POTUS, in what I would describe as something like a SCIF. (sensitive compartmented information facility)

Oberg told me it was a private matter.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I take that as a "no comment" non-denial, denial.
Guess he can't risk his pseudo-skeptic credentials among the CSICOP nutters that desperately cling to the a priori assumption that flying saucers are mythical objects akin to dragons and unicorns.

Originally posted by karl 12
Hey Schaden, I asked Jim about the true percentage of actual unknowns in this post but he seemed to skip it-I also think Jerry Cohen makes a very good point below...

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've heard this before. The inherent fallacy is that cases enshrined in reputable UFO data bases as 'unexplainable', or are highlighted in books by leading ufologists or on televised documentaries, are 'easy' cases -- but only after they have been solved.

It's my solving of many of the genre's favorite cases -- endorsed by supposedly top-notch UFO experts -- that has engendered such shrieking and whining. If they were 'easy', why hadn't any of THEM ever solved them?

[wink]

[chuckle]

Hey Jim, I know you like to set yourself up as a 'UFO expert' (link) and routinely advertise your homepage on these boards but, with the possible exception of the rather threadbare 'debunks' below, I don't think I've ever seen you address any of the incidents mentioned in the above post.

Originally posted by JimOberg

I think the Tehran case has a plausible prosaic explanation of inexperienced rich kids in scary situations (night flying) with one notoriously malfunctioning avionics kit, under pressure from the head of the Iranian secret police (SAVAK) who demanded satisfaction regarding a fairly pedestrian 'UFO report' he phoned in.

The Coyne story has fairly typical pilot narratives that have clearly been repeated so frequently they have evolved into forms that contain internal inconsistencies -- and COULD (can't prove it) have evolved from a bright fireball overflight, with added elements (radio blackout) that are just as likely to be coincidences. We've seen such stews cooked up so often before. Again, such a scenario is plausible but never really provable.

Can I ask you why this is?

Also, when it comes to the kind of nonsensical USAF explanations involved in cases like the Portage County incident, the Minot Air Force base incident etc.. do you think it's fair to say that some people just blindly accept them because 'that is what they want to believe'?

Dr James E. Mcdonald makes an interesting point below about 'official' UFO explanations - have you got any views on the statement considering you yourself are a confirmed believer in the 'null hypothesis'?

"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel. In most cases, I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

USAF "force fit" debunks

Originally posted by wasco2
Cool, thanks for that. I just put her book on my Kindle last night but haven't started it yet.

Wasco, I thought you meant this definition:

kin·dle

a. To build or fuel (a fire).

So I was glad to find this.

I don't know if you've seen it but here's Leslie Kean speaking on Russia Today - it realy is one of the better mainstream news channels out there and they also seem to be the only ones who covered the Argentine Government's new UFO investigative committee (link),




Cheers.