Leslie Kean, ATSLive Interview: Your Questions Answered

Good Day Members and Guest of ATS!

The National Radio and Internationally streamed program "Above Top Secret Live" will be interviewing this Saturday September 24th Ms. Leslie Kean. Her journalistic background is very impressive to say the least and were very fortunate that she is making time out of her busy schedule for us. Because of her recent publication entitled; "UFO - Generals, Pilot's and the Government go on the Record", we felt we just had to have her on to share with us some of these cases

Her Book is Here at Amazon

And here's how you can be a part of the show. Just simply come up with a 'thought-provoking' question for Ms Kean, and if time permits, we'll ask it Live on the program, (you may want to scroll through the thread to make sure your question hasn't already been asked first). Please limit yourself to one or two questions, so that others too may ask theirs. I've also linked up some brief News interviews below.

MSNBC article

Leslie Kean UFO Incursions

Michio Kaku Interviews Leslie Kean About UFOs 1 of 3



LESLIE KEAN is an independent investigative journalist with a background in freelance writing and radio broadcasting. She has contributed articles to dozens of publications here and abroad including the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Providence Journal, International Herald Tribune, Globe and Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, Bangkok Post, The Nation, and The Journal for Scientific Exploration. Her stories have been syndicated through Knight Ridder/Tribune, Scripps-Howard, New York Times wire service, Pacific News Service, and the National Publishers Association. While spending many years reporting on Burma, she co-authored Burma’s Revolution of the Spirit: The Struggle for Democratic Freedom and Dignity (Aperture, 1994) and she has contributed essays for a number of anthologies published between 1998 and 2009.

For those that want more information about this upcoming show, be sure to bookmark the ATSLive Forum for all updates and show information here:

ATSLive Show Forum

Awesome - Huge fan of hers. Have the book, right here!

Matter of fact, I've been referencing a clip of hers, on here for awhile now, so a preview for those who are unfamiliar:

First off, thank's alot for giving us the opportunity to put forward some questions to Ms. Kean.

Questions:

1. What made you confident your sources were reliable?
2. Why did you choose History Channel to make a documentary based on your book?
3. What made you interested in the subject of UFOs in the first place?
4. Are you concerned about the book and recent documentary hurting your career? If so, why? If not, why?
5. How do your peers consider you in light of your book on UFOs?

Questions for Leslie Kean:

1) Has the popularity and credibility of your book (UFOs: On the Record) caused any new credible witnesses to come forward and contact you with their stories? If so, can you tell us anything about those new stories?

2) Which UFO account made you lose all doubt that some UFOs were really real? For me it was the Rendlesham Forest account. For you, what was the tipping point?

3) Why is there no Wikipedia article about you? You are a noted author and journalist, so it makes no sense to me why you aren't listed at Wikipedia. Have you contacted Wikipedia and if so, what is their reasoning for this glaring omission?

4) What projects are you currently working on and when can we look forward to reading/viewing them?

Thank you for your time!

1 In your book and the subsequent documentary, a large significance is placed on the Belgium Wave and Phoenix Lights Incidents. Do you think that these make credible examples of genuinely anomalous UFO activity, when so many suspect that they (and most recent triangle incidents) represent covert terrestrial military technology? How do you distinguish between cases that may well be explicable in terms of covert terrestrial technology, and those which allegedly provide evidence of some non-human agency at work?

2. Do you find Fife Symington's testimony credible, considering the bizarre and inconsistent nature of his behaviour during the Phoenix Lights Incident? Doesn't it seem odd that Symington would have his aid dress up in a mocking Little Green Man suit within days of supposidly witnessing the UFO himself? This behaviour is surely far more consistent with someone who hadn't seen the Phoenix Lights, and was sceptical of the whole thing. Have you made any attempt to verify the Symington sighting, ie through anyone else who might have been present during the sighting, or through interviews with his family?

Sweet, I'm going to look forward to the interview, thanks ATS
I actually tried ordering the book just a few days ago, but apparently they couldn't get it home, so I'll have to try amazon i guess
Anywho, and I hope this is not too off topic, does anyone know, if its possible to get a hold of that rapport Leslie Kean is talking about, in the first part of her interview with Michio Kaku? The one written by French generals and what have you?

I'll be back in case I got some brilliant questions, but people should really listen to the interview above, I'm sure it covers some of the questions that might pop up

*Question for Leslie Kean*

Leslie, your book places a lot of emphasis on the triangle photo from the 1990 Belgian UFO wave. In July of 2011 somebody came forward to say that they hoaxed that photograph. How do you feel this impacts your research? Do you believe the photo was hoaxed? How does this impact the UFO community and your work in particular? Will you stop using the photo as a prime example of an unidentified flying object?

Ms. Kean, the UFO community owes you a debt of gratitude. Of all the possible outcomes, what's the single most important thing you'd like to achieve as a result of all the time and effort you've put into your work?

Thanks for being a voice of reason and integrity,
-Xt

Although I am sure this lady will have a few interesting bits of information....the reality is that not even those who are part of the agency...have a complete and total picture of what is going on. Sure...there are plenty of people...Military, Astronauts, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA....etc....who know that E.T. is a reality....but only a very few people know the whole truth about it.

So although she may bring to light some compelling evidence in the hoes of providing proof to the existence of E.T....I personally feel this is Beating a Dead Horse. That issue should be obvious....what is not is what it is all about and how do we figure into their plans.

THIS....is the Human Race saving question. Split Infinity

Originally posted by rumpiraten

Anywho, and I hope this is not too off topic, does anyone know, if its possible to get a hold of that rapport Leslie Kean is talking about, in the first part of her interview with Michio Kaku? The one written by French generals and what have you?

Here is part one of the COMETA Report.

Here is part two.

Here is an article by Leslie Kean about the COMETA Report.

reply to post by Orkojoker


Aaah yes, the COMETA report, thanks a lot man!

reply to post by SplitInfinity


The big picture is naught but many smaller elements combined. Leslie Kean is a scholar who can provide insight into some of those smaller elements.


My question: What is your general opinion on the abduction phenomenon? Have you come across much, if any, witness testimony from those claiming to have insight on that aspect of UFOlogy?

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

The big picture is naught but many smaller elements combined. Leslie Kean is a scholar who can provide insight into some of those smaller elements.


My question: What is your general opinion on the abduction phenomenon? Have you come across much, if any, witness testimony from those claiming to have insight on that aspect of UFOlogy?

According to an article by Carol Rainey called the Priests of High Strangeness, Leslie Kean actually worked with Budd Hopkins in the abduction phenomenon.
www.paratopia.org...

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
*Question for Leslie Kean*

Leslie, your book places a lot of emphasis on the triangle photo from the 1990 Belgian UFO wave. In July of 2011 somebody came forward to say that they hoaxed that photograph. How do you feel this impacts your research? Do you believe the photo was hoaxed? How does this impact the UFO community and your work in particular? Will you stop using the photo as a prime example of an unidentified flying object?

I certainly don't want to step up here and speak for Miss Kean on your questions, but I happen to be on her FaceBook section where it looks like she was addressing this exact question of yours. I'll just copy and paste a bit of her post and add a link to it in case you want to read the rest of it. I personally feel that she approached the subject at hand in a clear and concise way (your perception may differ from mine of course).

Topic: The Petit Rechain photo, Belgium

"For those who have been posting about the Belgian photo, here’s the current situation: the photographer Patrick Marechal (PM) says he hoaxed it by making a Styrofoam model. One friend of his from the factory has been interviewed by one investigator, who stated that he helped make the model. He was not present when the picture was taken. This corroborating witness is the only evidence PM has produced to back up his claim of a hoax.

Working against him are the following points:

1) he refuses to give investigators the name and contact info of his girlfriend, now his ex-wife, who was there when he took the photo.

2) PM is trying to get money from the person he sold the copyright to, and is taking him to court to claim it. That person, Guy Mossay, a well-known journalist who worked for a leading Belgian press agency, states they had a written agreement giving him ownership of the photo, as was standard; PM claims there was no agreement. There are other contradictions in interviews with both of them. Mossay, who since moved to France, is trying to find the agreement. This battle could give PM a motive for claiming the photo is a hoax – to get back at Mossay – but this is pure speculation.

3) PM says he has 12 photos of the original model hanging from a wire, and that he would look for them, but he hasn’t produced them.

4) PM said he would recreate the model and the photo. When he presented his recreated photo to investigator Patrick Ferryn, it did not look like the Petit Rechain photo. PM says it’s because they no longer make the same bulbs he used at the time.

5) How was the ‘halo effect” as documented by Prof. Marion created by a Styrofoam model? Marion died a year ago, but this question needs to be posed to other scientists. Also, could the unique characteristics of the corner lights and their rotations, with a very different central light, have been created with light bulbs? If PM can’t recreate it, can someone else? "

(The remainder of her thoughts and comments can be accessed via the link above to her Facebook post)

Originally posted by Wingz

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
*Question for Leslie Kean*

Leslie, your book places a lot of emphasis on the triangle photo from the 1990 Belgian UFO wave. In July of 2011 somebody came forward to say that they hoaxed that photograph. How do you feel this impacts your research? Do you believe the photo was hoaxed? How does this impact the UFO community and your work in particular? Will you stop using the photo as a prime example of an unidentified flying object?

I certainly don't want to step up here and speak for Miss Kean on your questions, but I happen to be on her FaceBook section where it looks like she was addressing this exact question of yours. I'll just copy and paste a bit of her post and add a link to it in case you want to read the rest of it. I personally feel that she approached the subject at hand in a clear and concise way (your perception may differ from mine of course).

Topic: The Petit Rechain photo, Belgium

"For those who have been posting about the Belgian photo, here’s the current situation: the photographer Patrick Marechal (PM) says he hoaxed it by making a Styrofoam model. One friend of his from the factory has been interviewed by one investigator, who stated that he helped make the model. He was not present when the picture was taken. This corroborating witness is the only evidence PM has produced to back up his claim of a hoax.

Working against him are the following points:

1) he refuses to give investigators the name and contact info of his girlfriend, now his ex-wife, who was there when he took the photo.

2) PM is trying to get money from the person he sold the copyright to, and is taking him to court to claim it. That person, Guy Mossay, a well-known journalist who worked for a leading Belgian press agency, states they had a written agreement giving him ownership of the photo, as was standard; PM claims there was no agreement. There are other contradictions in interviews with both of them. Mossay, who since moved to France, is trying to find the agreement. This battle could give PM a motive for claiming the photo is a hoax – to get back at Mossay – but this is pure speculation.

3) PM says he has 12 photos of the original model hanging from a wire, and that he would look for them, but he hasn’t produced them.

4) PM said he would recreate the model and the photo. When he presented his recreated photo to investigator Patrick Ferryn, it did not look like the Petit Rechain photo. PM says it’s because they no longer make the same bulbs he used at the time.

5) How was the ‘halo effect” as documented by Prof. Marion created by a Styrofoam model? Marion died a year ago, but this question needs to be posed to other scientists. Also, could the unique characteristics of the corner lights and their rotations, with a very different central light, have been created with light bulbs? If PM can’t recreate it, can someone else? "

(The remainder of her thoughts and comments can be accessed via the link above to her Facebook post)

#5 makes no sense. It's a still photo, not a video, so what does she mean their rotations? Rotation isnt evident in a still photo.

I think it's funny though that back when the photo was supposedly an alien UFO, people believed it even though there wasn't much in the way of evidence. But, now that the photographer has come out and admit the hoax, all of a sudden they want all sorts of evidence.

What are your plans for the future work-wise?
Do you expect to publish more on Ufo related topics in the near future,
or do you feel you have said everything on the issue you wanted to for now?

reply to post by derpif


My question would be, can she clarify if there is or isn't any video or photographs of the Chicago O'Hare UFO incident which haven't as yet been produced?

Regards, Ziggy in Scotland.

I am interested to hear more on a range of stuff that Bill Hamilton claimed, possibly ET underground bases.

reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous


Great thread Johnny and kudos to Ms Kean for taking the time out to do an interview.

I'd like to ask about a point made in the book "UFO - Generals, Pilot's and the Government go on the Record" regarding unexplained rate percentages...

"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

Cheers.

I'd like to ask Leslie two seemingly related questions.

1. According to a recent ATS survey on UFOs and Extraterrestrials (www.abovetopsecret.com...) the mainstream media's mocking tone when dealing with UFO matters is perceived as a very significant harm to the credibility of ufology. Another hurting factor which has been highlighted is the debunkers habit of finding a forced prosaic explanation for every sighting (planet Venus anyone?) or dismissing the UFO field entirely, even when they haven't "done their homework". Personally I think that the "giggle factor" and the "debunker factor" are the two capital problems we have when dealing with this matter, as they are both shortcuts that lead the uninformed to think that the UFO matter is just 100% nonsense - so that they can dismiss all of it at once. Being an experienced journalist, could you suggest some practical ways to deal with these issues and fight them back? Say you are posting on a blog or a forum about a UFO issue and here comes the typical debunker giggling with the little green men and "equating UFOs to extraterrestrial spacecraft by definition" (to borrow a phrase from your book) and saying that we have no evidence or proof, and refusing the evidence when shown: what would you do in that case?

2. How to do the same in the real world, within a family for example? Say you've got a father who is really interested in science and space matters but dismisses the UFO field entirely because of the ridicule associated with it: what would you tell him to convince him, so that he could eventually look at the evidence and possibly change idea?

Thank you.