Leslie Kean on UFOs.

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Jay-morris
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.


An assumption is no longer necessary, UFOs are factual. No one is qualified over anyone else to explain UFOs as no one can explain them. Whether you wear a uniform or are just the Average Joe on the street, no particular experience is necessary. If you are a believer, you have something to believe in. If you are an experiencer you're one of the "lucky" ones. I am one of the lucky ones.

My opinion is more valid than a believer who hasn't had a serious, unquestionable sighting, whether the believer is a general, a cop, or whatever.



But surely experienced people like atmospheric expert Dr James E.MacDonald or people of his credibility and scientific background viewing something in the sky are more likely to perceive what explanations of their own sightings might be than say the ordinary man or woman on the streets;
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)


Nothing happens from even a serious closeup, especially a daylight sighting, as we do not have the required data base. All that happens is that you witness something that is not in your mental data base and if you are familiar with most human aircraft it blows your mind that this object has no semblance to any of "ours" or that it behaves as a human aircraft is supposed, obeying aeronatical laws that we've composed based on our physical
reality.

If it's a nightime sighting it has to go beyond a spot of light in the distance even if it's doing "strange" maneuvers.
My sighting of the 3 "stars" that went from standing still to hauling away is not your average nightime sighting. Atmospheric expertise doesn't buy you anything that wasn't known, the experience cannot be explained in sure terms.

An average person will report the experience in much the same terms. If Mr MacDonald had had my "quality" sightings he wouldn't have been able to add anything to my report as I've been involved with UFOs since 1957 and I've had 5/6 sightings. I'm not trying to make myself more important than anyone else who saw something that was foreign to their view of life. But because I started "early" and educated myself my UFO reports would have been and were as detailed as possible.




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Jay-morris
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.


An assumption is no longer necessary, UFOs are factual. No one is qualified over anyone else to explain UFOs as no one can explain them. Whether you wear a uniform or are just the Average Joe on the street, no particular experience is necessary. If you are a believer, you have something to believe in. If you are an experiencer you're one of the "lucky" ones. I am one of the lucky ones.

My opinion is more valid than a believer who hasn't had a serious, unquestionable sighting, whether the believer is a general, a cop, or whatever.



But surely experienced people like atmospheric expert Dr James E.MacDonald or people of his credibility and scientific background viewing something in the sky are more likely to perceive what explanations of their own sightings might be than say the ordinary man or woman on the streets;
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)


Nothing happens from even a serious closeup, especially a daylight sighting, as we do not have the required data base. All that happens is that you witness something that is not in your mental data base and if you are familiar with most human aircraft it blows your mind that this object has no semblance to any of "ours" or that it behaves as a human aircraft is supposed, obeying aeronatical laws that we've composed based on our physical
reality.

If it's a nightime sighting it has to go beyond a spot of light in the distance even if it's doing "strange" maneuvers.
My sighting of the 3 "stars" that went from standing still to hauling away is not your average nightime sighting. Atmospheric expertise doesn't buy you anything that wasn't known, the experience cannot be explained in sure terms.

An average person will report the experience in much the same terms. If Mr MacDonald had had my "quality" sightings he wouldn't have been able to add anything to my report as I've been involved with UFOs since 1957 and I've had 5/6 sightings. I'm not trying to make myself more important than anyone else who saw something that was foreign to their view of life. But because I started "early" and educated myself my UFO reports would have been and were as detailed as possible.



Ok,then to put it another way who do you think is in a more better position to put together a scientific paper called "science in default ,20 years of inadequate investigation's of UFOs" a man of MacDonald's scientific background or a person who witnessed a object in the sky by his own unscientific back ground.The data base to judge objects that contain high ,medium or low levels of high strangeness cases must come from those sources like MacDonald who are qualified and in the position to rule out all known "atmospheric" or "meteoric" explanations or origins. As you are probably aware MacDonald was privy to a lot of "Blue Books " and the "Condon Report" UFO investigation's and there conclusions and he also collected a considerable amount of data based on his interviews with various military and civilian witnesses to UFOs, i am not saying that what you have said is inadequate or indeed without merit but i personally go along the lines of who is in a more qualified and better position to offer a better scientific understanding based on the scientific data collected like what MacDonald had;



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
But surely experienced people like atmospheric expert Dr James E.MacDonald or people of his credibility and scientific background viewing something in the sky are more likely to perceive what explanations of their own sightings might be than say the ordinary man or woman on the streets; and are in a much better position


K-PAX-PROT, tend to agree with your comments there mate and when it comes to deductive reasoning I think a scientist (particularly an atmospherical physicist) would be in a better position to judge potential explanations for UFO sightings -if they do remain unexplained and are classified as 'actual unknowns' then they remain exactly that but I think people with scientific backgrounds and extensive training in specific fields make for more interesting witnesses.

The clip below around 1:40 mentions Dr James E Mcdonald's 1954 UFO sighting in Tucson, Arizona and he also makes a relevant statement here about potential explanations for UFO incidents - John P. Timmerman from CUFOS also comments on Dr. J. Allen Hynek's UFO sighting (and photograph) whilst aboard a passenger jet in the early seventies.



Mcdonald UFO sighting -see 1:40



Thread



Hynek UFO sighting:



Cheers.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
But surely experienced people like atmospheric expert Dr James E.MacDonald or people of his credibility and scientific background viewing something in the sky are more likely to perceive what explanations of their own sightings might be than say the ordinary man or woman on the streets; and are in a much better position


K-PAX-PROT, tend to agree with your comments there mate and when it comes to deductive reasoning I think a scientist (particularly an atmospherical physicist) would be in a better position to judge potential explanations for UFO sightings -if they do remain unexplained and are classified as 'actual unknowns' then they remain exactly that but I think people with scientific backgrounds and extensive training in specific fields make for more interesting witnesses.

The clip below around 1:40 mentions Dr James E Mcdonald's 1954 UFO sighting in Tucson, Arizona and he also makes a relevant statement here about potential explanations for UFO incidents - John P. Timmerman from CUFOS also comments on Dr. J. Allen Hynek's UFO sighting (and photograph) whilst aboard a passenger jet in the early seventies.



Mcdonald UFO sighting -see 1:40



Thread



Hynek UFO sighting:



Cheers.





Hi Karl first of a big thanks for your comments and the links an videos you kindly posted;I have just recently came across Dr James E.MacDonald and i am in the process of shifting through his various pdf and on line material ect;So far i have found his work in the investigative part of this UFO subject a complete breath of welcomed fresh air ,in short he has my full attention and i would even go so far as saying i am a bit transfixed and fascinated by his findings and conclusions of his investigations i have read up to now.Once again cheers, this man MacDonald and sources like him are the ones that need to be highlighted of the importance and credible input he and others like him have gave this fascinating subject that is the UFO enigma.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
I have just recently came across Dr James E.MacDonald and i am in the process of shifting through his various pdf and on line material ect;So far i have found his work in the investigative part of this UFO subject a complete breath of welcomed fresh air ,in short he has my full attention and i would even go so far as saying i am a bit transfixed and fascinated by his findings and conclusions of his investigations i have read up to now.


Me and you both mate, he was a truly courageous chap in the history of UFO research and we need more 'scientists with balls' like him.


It's a great shame that his kind of rigorous, intensive analysis is all but extinct in mainstream scientific circles these days and the way he got treated by certain individuals was an absolute disgrace - a lot it seems to be down to infamous UFO debunker Phillip Klass who apparently mounted 'an extended, concerted campaign against McDonald':






In late 1967, McDonald secured a modest grant from the Office of Naval Research in order to study cloud formations in Australia. While in Australia, McDonald conducted some UFO research on his own time. Klass mounted an extended, concerted campaign against McDonald, arguing that he had squandered government funds. The ONR responded by announcing that they knew of McDonald's UFO interests and had no objections to his personal hobbies. The University of Arizona came to McDonald's defense, announcing that McDonald's UFO research was done on his own time, and had no adverse impact on his regular teaching and research duties at the university.

Klass then demonstrated that McDonald was spending at least small sums of government research funds on UFO research, and the ONR, apparently fearing controversy, decided to no longer fund McDonald's cloud research.


link


Cheers.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Hi Karl, great videos. I'm not sure if you have any insight on this, but whatever happened to the old Coalition for Freedom of Information (CFI) website? Last I checked freedomofinfo.org seems to be somewhat threadbare.

www.freedomofinfo.org...

in comparison to,

web.archive.org...

I figured after the book she'd redouble her efforts to help build momentum for the political initiative.

Leslie's a smart gal, it would be a shame if she gave up on the subject.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
snip for brevity

Ok,then to put it another way who do you think is in a more better position to put together a scientific paper called "science in default ,20 years of inadequate investigation's of UFOs" a man of MacDonald's scientific background or a person who witnessed a object in the sky by his own unscientific back ground.The data base to judge objects that contain high ,medium or low levels of high strangeness cases must come from those sources like MacDonald who are qualified and in the position to rule out all known "atmospheric" or "meteoric" explanations or origins. As you are probably aware MacDonald was privy to a lot of "Blue Books " and the "Condon Report" UFO investigation's and there conclusions and he also collected a considerable amount of data based on his interviews with various military and civilian witnesses to UFOs, i am not saying that what you have said is inadequate or indeed without merit but i personally go along the lines of who is in a more qualified and better position to offer a better scientific understanding based on the scientific data collected like what MacDonald had;


There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account before selecting the better POV. If a witness is able to provide a detailed account of a daytime sighting, then you have data worth working with and a possible answer can be deduced by a qualified "expert". However, MacDonald had to work with the report and his imagination while the witness had his eyes and mind and mental database of aerial objects for comparison.

While I do not mean to imply that everyone makes a competent witness, a lot depends on the quality of the sighting. Most everyone recognizes human craft such as airplanes, helicopters, and blimps when they are close. Height is the x factor that casts doubt on what one sees and what the observed object is doing. I don't think I could ever mistake a planet for a UFO especially during daytime.

I could never allow someone that wasn't there with me seeing what I was seeing to make a call. It serves no purpose. Reports are reports and there are too many variables in reports that may not allow anyone, regardless of specialty to decide with finality.
edit on 27-2-2012 by The Shrike because: (To add comments)
edit on 27-2-2012 by The Shrike because: Corrections



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Yes, its good to be skeptical, but there is a de-bunking cult like problem that refuses to take the subjet seriously, even though the evidence is overwhelming that something odd is flying in our air-space,be it ET, secret militery craft, unexplained natural phenomenon etc


Jay-morris, you make a good point there and I'm sure 'UFO cynics' and people who believe 'everything' is a UFO have got far more in common with each other than they like to think - it's been posted before on these boards but Kevin Randle does make some very good points in this short video - Bernard Haisch also makes an interesting statement below:
snip
Cheers.


I disagree with Randle and I can say that he sounds really ignorant with his comments about some skeptics and some debunkers. A skeptic can be a debunker! I'm a natural skeptic but I am not the Robert Sheaffer type of skeptic as I've had my UFO sightings. But I still I require evidence when dealing with claims. I don't go out of my way to debunk but I debunk and I haven't come up empty yet. Coming to this forum is not going out of my way. It happens that as I read the contents of threads I may read something that requires debunking to set the record straight. Debunking is not a nefarious activity although some may relish the successful results, as I do because debunking forces you to see how some people fool themselves because they're mentally lazy. Successful debunking is a high!


Leslie Kean writes about reports made by what she considers qualified observers such as authority figures which include pilots. She puts a lot of store in what they report without realizing that position is not a qualifying factor. One can be a skeptic about what is reported depending on the quality of the report. Many pilots' sightings have been "debunked" but not all pilots' sightings can be debunked. Nothing is written in stone especially when it comes from UFO sightings whether up there or down here.
edit on 27-2-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
What gets me is that even a man of Dr Allan Hyneks academical scientific credibility, experienced background is never enough for those that have the agenda that ALL UFO reports have a mundane explanation and that any possibility of an ET origin is just not possible.The point i am trying to make here is that Hynek eventually discovered that those UFO reports that contained high levels of strangeness due to their fight characteristics, manoeuvres and speeds were most often than not presented with "force fit debunking" explanations and that project blue blue was really set up with an agenda of debunking all UFO reports and the perceptions of a UFO investigation was to be manipulated as just a waste of time money and resources.

That those hard to explain UFO reports were always made to look as ,"well probably a plane ect anyway ,nothing really to get excited about" and were usually stamped with a force fit debunking explanation.Hynek"s classification system for listing various UFO s was important too and one i feel is still relevant today.Blue Books "unknowns" or those cases that after investigation were deemed either not enough data to form a final conclusion or the data contained real problematic levels of genuine high strangeness that was also problematic in its self because after all avenues of possible known explanations were exhausted the ET explanation would rear its unwelcome head and hence the manifestations of the "force fit debunking " explanations that started to be added to the "unknowns".

That we could have or still are under a minimal non open contact observational agenda from one or more ET intelligences is deserving i feel of consideration and one that would certainly explain the lack of any real concrete photographic evidence or a nice shiny UFO landing on the Whitehouse lawn with a alien shaking the hand of the president.We could be under the observation of an intelligence so advanced that they have the capabilities to enter our world at will just like the deep see diver can enter and leave the see at will,hence possible advanced stealth technology and the ability to effect photographic equipment . That the ET origins for SOME UFO reports ect has to remain open and possible until proven otherwise is i feel a justified one considering the amount of circumstantial evidence which points to genuine unknowns be they at present undiscovered realities of nature or ET in origin.
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum