It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by JimOberg
Here in his own words. He wasn't worried about UFO believers, he was worried about an aborted mission. FACT.
Don't even bother posting about your position on the subject, your position is absolutely clear.
You were recently part of a discussion on Michio Kaku's radio show as a religious debunker. They mention you near the end of the first segment. Maybe you should have a listen and educate yourself. There are things happening in our atmosphere that EXPERTs cannot explain.
Kaku: First of all let’s talk about the skeptics. They say, ‘Bah! Humbug!’ You have hoaxes, you have the planet Venus, weather balloons, swamp gas. Isn’t it true that most UFO sightings can be explained by natural phenomenon.
Keane: And the skeptics are right about that, absolutely. In fact, about 95% of all sightings that are reported of UFOs can be explained by the things you said – weather balloons, airplanes, birds, strange natural phenomenon, there’s a whole list of things they can be. And they usually are explained. But there’s that nugget, there’s that 5% of very well researched cases. Now we’re only talking about cases here for which there is so much data that we can eliminate the other possibilities. And there ARE some really extraordinary cases that fit that category, that have been officially investigated by governments, by militaries. And some of the people contributing to my book have talked about those cases, including five generals. So we have to look at THOSE cases. And I think the skeptics really don’t often study the data. I mean, they love to dismiss the whole thing but they’ve got to look closely at other cases.
Q: What has been the response by the skeptics? I imagine that quite a few of them are fuming about your book but what’s been the response?
A: Well, I have to say I’ve only heard from one so far who I don’t even think he defines himself as a skeptic. His name is James Oberg, people can look him up on the Internet, he used to be with NASA. And he doesn’t define himself as a skeptic so I’m not – you know, a debunker I guess is the word he doesn’t like. But -- he did write a piece on MSNBC last week stating that he doesn’t think pilots are good observers. Now some of the cases in my book are written by pilots, but not all of them, not all of them involve pilots, but he makes that point – I don’t happen to agree with him and lots of other experts don’t – and I did write a reply to that [end of tape]
So, I am pretty much done responding to you unless you have more to add about the incident in the OP. Thanks.