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

reply to post by Spangler



Actually I don't have much to go on but a gut instinct listening to her. There were several comments that peaked my attention but none that come to mind specifically. I will just wait and gather more evidence for my theory but until then its just a hunch.

Many of these ops are very much believers themselves - their purpose is not disprove ufos but to mislead the direction of the whole phenomenon.

Originally posted by epicvision
Many of these ops are very much believers themselves - their purpose is not disprove ufos but to mislead the direction of the whole phenomenon.

I respect your opinion and agree that there might be those who want to mislead and misdirect people in regards to the UFO phenomenon, but Leslie Kean isn't actually making any claims other than ‘we should investigate UFOs seriously, and here are the high level people who agree and have personal experiences to share.’ She isn't saying ‘don't look here, look over there.’

I personally don't see Kean trying to mislead or misdirect anyone, but I will gladly look at any evidence you present to support your hunch.

^^ I agree but she is definitely asking to create a "government" organization for the intensive study of UFO's - kind of sounds like she could be pulling a Hynek (project Blue Book) for the 21st century.

Originally posted by epicvision
^^ I agree but she is definitely asking to create a "government" organization for the intensive study of UFO's - kind of sounds like she could be pulling a Hynek (project Blue Book) for the 21st century.

I think Leslie's approach is that of putting aside all the conspiracy theories and other popular beliefs in ufology regarding government involvement in the study of UFOs for a moment and wondering ‘what, in an ideal world, would make sense in regards to an investigation of UFOs?’

I understand her argument and perspective, and it does make sense — the government officially and publicly investigating UFOs would automatically signal to the scientific and academic communities that it's a subject to be taken seriously; government officials would have access to documentation and personnel of all federal agencies; and the government should be investigating UFOs because at the very least they pose national or flight security risks.

Anyway as I've mentioned before I doubt what Kean hopes for is achievable, mainly due to the current political climate, and the fact that UFOs is a toxic subject for any politician. Just ask Dennis Kucinich.

*edit*

[edit on 23-8-2010 by ufo reality]

Video of Michio Kaku on the Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC today (Monday Aug 23)
www.msnbc.msn.com...

It says that Leslie Kean will be a guest on his show tomorrow (Tuesday Aug 24) at 4pm eastern.

*Reminder that she will be the guest on the Colbert Report on the Comedy Central channel tonight (Monday Aug 23) at 11:30pm eastern
www.colbertnation.com...

[edit on 23-8-2010 by ufo reality]

I have extracted only the Leslie Kean's interview from "The Colbert Report" aired last night (August 23, 2010).

Here you can watch the video:
UPDATE:
Youtube has already removed the link but video is now uploaded officialy so you can now use this link instead:
www.colbertnation.com...


Also I have uploaded better quality copy of Michio Kaku interview (August 23, 2010) where he commented Leslie Kean's book on the Dylan Ratigan show:

www.youtube.com...

Thanks once more to hinsch for the first alert about Michio Kaku Interview.

Best Wishes


[edit on 24-8-2010 by uforadio]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by uforadio]

Just got done watching Kean's segment on TV. She did a great job of staying grounded/focused and not getting caught up in the joking, nor did she leave herself open to any sort of ridicule... I was watching with trepidation considering it was on the Comedy channel. I think Colbert was actually surprised that he couldnt "get her"....


Also just watched the Kaku video, he backs Kean pretty well and does a good job of also staying on point and presenting a solid argument...


Just these two small tid-bits blow away the hours of bull from the likes of Greer and Bassett.....

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Toxicsurf]

Dear colleagues.

I have spent good amount of time to locate audio of this and I was successful at the end. I had to check many stations from Premiere Radio Networkt to find the possible podcast archive. But now audios are here, extracted and archived.

At the end I have processed 8 hours of audio from the shows aired at August 11, 12 and 13 and extracted are only UFO references for each day.

Here you go - edited with great care and uploaded.

Radio Station: 92KQRS

August 11th
Interview with Leslie Kean together with col. Charles Halt about book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record".
Download link:
www.adrive.com...

August 12th
Short comments about Leslie's interview from yesterday (August 11th)
Download link:
www.adrive.com...

August 13th
Host is reading news about Brazilian decision how to handle UFO reports. After that he is reading news about recent release of the UK UFO documents. I love when he shouts "What?!" when he reads portion of alleged Churchill coverup.
Download link:
www.adrive.com...

Best Wishes


[edit on 24-8-2010 by uforadio]

Dear colleagues.

Leslie Kean was just interviewed on WNYC Brian Lehrer Show (NPR-airs in New York) about her book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record".

Recorded Live
Lenght: 12,23 minutes
Download link:
www.adrive.com...

Best Wishes

Did she repeat what she claimed on Colbert last night?

“They’ve been seen on radar. Something has to be physical to be seen on radar…”

or

“5% have been so well investigated they have been able to eliminate any explanation”

Originally posted by JimOberg
Did she repeat what she claimed on Colbert last night?

“They’ve been seen on radar. Something has to be physical to be seen on radar…”

or

“5% have been so well investigated they have been able to eliminate any explanation”

No she didn't repeat those claims. I think the first claim was most dramatically proven false in the Belgian UFO flap when even SOBEPs finally admitted that the UFOs probably were not flying below ground level at times as the radar data indicated so the radar returns had to be false, the first 8 were anyway, but even after admitting the first 8 were false they still wanted to say "lock-on #9" looked interesting instead of lumping it in with all the other false radar data.

And on the latest interview, she stopped at saying 95% could be explained without claiming the "5% have been so well investigated they have been able to eliminate any explanation”.

I've heard that argument before, that "once we rule out all the earthly explanations, the only explanation that remains must be unearthly", but I've never seen anyone convince me that they can rule out all earthly explanations. So if you're suggesting it's not accurate to claim we have "eliminated any explanation" in the 5%, I tend to agree, there may be some explanations that nobody has even thought of, so how can they all possibly be eliminated?

The other thing she hammered on again in the latest interview is how convincing the trace evidence is, landing marks, etc. I can't think of any trace evidence cases I find all that compelling.The Rendlesham forest case with Penniston's rabbit scratchings and the Socorro NM case, and the fairy rings have been confused with UFO rings that get some people excited, really don't seem very compelling to me.

One of the callers said it might be better if "they" left something behind like a gum wrapper, and I have to agree, if it came from another part of the galaxy, a gum wrapper might prove way more interesting than the trace evidence cases we have that Leslie Kean thinks are so great.

The part about the Colbert interview that bothered me was this:

Kean: "High level officials have come forward in this book, generals, government officials have investigated on behalf of governments, pilots...."

Colbert: "What generals think there are aliens out there"

Kean: "They don't think they're aliens and that's one of the points they all make in this book, we don't know what they are"

OK that's fair enough, until she says: "There are objects in the sky that fly around that demonstrate extraordinary capacities to do things we can't do here on Earth"

First she says we don't know what they are, but then she tries to rule out an earthly origin (and given how popular sightings of Venus are I suppose not all sightings ARE Earthly), but if she doesn't know what they are she should stop there instead of saying where they are from, or NOT from.

Thanks for the account, Arb. I'm recording Dylan Ratigan now and will watch it shortly. We'll see if she gets questions from fore-armed and informed interviewers this time.

And here is Leslie Kean on the Dylan Ratigan show today:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by ufo reality
And here is Leslie Kean on the Dylan Ratigan show today:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Why does every TV host has to ridicule the subject? His end-remarks and jokes seemed forced and was not close to humorous, it was like he had to do them since the subject was UFO's.... What an asshole.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think it's strange how so many non-UFO believers hang out on a UFO forum, trying your best to prove that there are no such things as UFO's.

I can't believe where you get your motivation from? Logics suggest a UFO site would consist of mostly UFO believers, but in every good thread you guys show up and frantically and passionately write an essay how crazy the thread is.

If I believed in conspiracies, I'd think you were hired to go here and disinfo' every credible UFO thread.

reply to post by Shades1035


I'm not going to speak for someone so much more knowledgeable than me, but I feel like I can answer this since the same spiel is given to me almost in any thread that I participate.

First of all I do not believe that this is a "UFO-site", but I get what you mean: the same can be said for conspiracies - you'll find me in many a thread questioning, debunking and challenging claims. And yes, there's those times that I wish I would get paid for this. I spent like a whole weekend just to counter Holocaust-denier claims and I wouldn't mind being reimbursed for that. Of course, lacking a central disinfo corporation (well there is one, and I like their books, but they are not exactly what the name would imply) or some sort of sophisticated union that looks out for your fellow disinfo agent. (Disinfo Agents of the world, unite!).

Anyway, there's tons of motivations to come to ATS and post. Maybe you shouldn't think about ATS as a purely pro-anything place (although, as you can read in the disclaimer on this board, ATS does show a slight "pro" tendency) but more of a place where things out of the ordinary can be discussed . Discussion, though, is most frutiful when conducted critically, with an open but sekptic mind. The motto of ATS is, after all, Deny Ignorance and not "hooray for any outlandish claim".

I've learned more about the nature of the UFO phenomenon in the few minutes I spent on this thread than I've learned from the countless books and websites I've read over the years. IMHO, this thread is one of the best examples of what ATS is really about: A critical, civil disseminating of material related to things considered outlandish by the so called mainstream. I'd prefer this kind of collaboration over a bold but more entertaining tale any day - and that's exactly why I'm on ATS and not one of the countless other sites that primarily functions as echo-chambers for whatever preconceived notion a poster might hold.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin] incapitated...

[edit on 24-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by Shades1035
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I think it's strange how so many non-UFO believers hang out on a UFO forum, trying your best to prove that there are no such things as UFO's.

I can't believe where you get your motivation from?

I'm not sure what gave you the idea I'm not a UFO believer, I definitely believe there are UFOs. When you have them on film how can you deny there are UFOs?

Oldfield Film (1966) which "will become very famous":


Obviously that's a UFO being discussed in the video, but the question is, what is it? My guess is, most pilots, generals and government officials don't know as they have probably never even seen that video before.

The dogfight over Tehran on page 86 of Leslie Kean's book is one of my favorite cases, they obviously saw a UFO, but I have no idea what it was, and I've never seen a good explanation from anyone else. So that's why I hang out here looking for more interesting UFO sightings like that one.

1. A very impressive-looking new book on UFOs by journalist Leslie Kean is coming out with impressive endorsements: ufosontherecord.com...
2. I've been fascinated with the subject all my life, from a skeptical but puzzled point of view -- and although most cases (even most FAMOUS cases) seem to have prosaic explanations, I think there could well be phenomena of significant interest to science, theology, national security, law enforcement, meteorology, perceptual psychology, dianetics, whatever, lurking among the weeds.
3. I'll be writing a longer commentary on the book for the msnbc.com website in a few days, but this can't wait.
4. Kean's book, in my view, suffers from major shortcomings and misunderstandings that render its conclusions -- "UFOs are real physical objects that deserve high-level government respect" -- invalid.
5. Nobody is in any position to "prove" that "UFOs do NOT exist" or that (for one typical theory) "alien civilizations can NOT be visiting Earth." Such arguments are only opinions without logical foundation. And if aliens really are here, they can be as invisible as they like.
6. The REAL question is this: is there a subset of UFO reports that cannot be explained in ANY earthly/prosaic terms, but instead are undeniable proof that some NEW stimulus, some entirely unknown phenomenon (or phenomena) causes them?
7. Kean says YES. I say MAYBE NOT. Here's why.
8. Kean claims that pilot testimony of strange aerial events is the best ever, they are the most reliable human eyewitnesses to any events in the air.
9. Au contraire, I say that pilots have been shown by studies to react based on the dangers they expect, so they are very safe to fly with, but they 'worst case' fleeting glimpses into the kinds of aerial situations they have reason to fear most. That 'first impression' can then persist over any long and complicated subsequent pilot interaction with the apparition or others that follow. A 'false positive' (mistaking something harmless for a hazard) has no cost, but a 'false negative' (NOT recognizing as hazardous something that really IS so) can be fatal -- so 'rather safe than sorry' is a good rule.
10. Both statistical studies (eg, by Hynek, 'Professor UFO' of the 1960s) and case after case of actual pilot reactions, support this surprising assessment. Pilots often misperceive even astronomical phenomena as collision-course aircraft.
11. Kean claims that explainable 'UFO reports' are useless once the prosaic cause is determined, but experts can separate out a distinct subset of all reports which can be proven to have no earthly explanation -- these are the "true UFOs".
12. Au contraire, I claim that there is a 'slippery slope' of "solvability" of cases, which get harder and require more 'lucky breaks' in finding out the prosaic cause, but no SHARP boundary on which one side is all the solvable cases and the other, the unsolvables.
13. Kean actually provides supportive evidence for MY assertion in her book (p. 136) where she refers to a list of 1300 pilot UFO cases collected by French researcher Dominique Weinstein, asserting that the cases are all 'true UFOs" because they have been investigated by experts and determined to be unsolvable.
14. But a cursory review of the list reveals at least a dozen cases in my own technical specialty, missile and space activity, where the solution was found and published years ago. But Weinstein ignored the published solutions and Kean declared that no such explanations even existed.
15. And Kean then provides involuntary support for my assessment that pilots perceive ambiguous apparitions in terms they have been trained to fear, for their own safety. On page 137 she asserts that the 'true UFOs' recognize the nature of the pilots who are observing them and tailor their behavior to the pilots -- threatening collisions for civilians, and mimicking dog fights for the military, based on the markedly different descriptions that the two categories of pilots give for their own UFO encounters.
16. Think about this: to explain how the different categories of pilots perceive the UFOs each in terms of their own special experiences, Kean proposes that the UFOs are deliberately behaving differently for different types of pilots.
17. A much simpler explanation makes more sense: the pilots, when faced with ambiguous, rapid, short-lived apparitions, receive the raw data and process it in terms they are already familiar with. Which is what I argue from the beginning.
18. But for Kean, the UFO reports are gospel and since they have been validated (in her imagination only), they can be absolutely relied on. Skeptical investigations of these or any other case she uses simply, to her, do not exist. Published prosaic explanations, even those widely accepted by serious ufologists, do not exist.
19. This allows her to use as evidence cases such as Jimmy Carter's 'UFO', one that was solved decades ago. And others.
20. By declaring that all 'solved' UFO reports are useless garbage, she can avoid facing the difficulty that the pilot cases she highlights do not in any essential aspects differ from them, from cases known to have been caused by prosaic stimuli perceived through the pilot's pro-survival interpretive process.
21. By falsely declaring all 'non-UFO' reports as garbage, she also can argue (p. 449) that military interest in UFO reports (which she defines as reports that have NO earthly explanation) is proof the government treats them as genuine. A more complete understanding of such interest is that many of the prosaic stimuli behind many pseudo-UFO reports are themselves of genuine and justifiable interest to specialists. Missile launches, for example, or warhead reentry tests -- the stimuli for a number of the 'true UFO' stories in the Weinstein list that Kean declares totally genuine and unsolvable.
22. None of these arguments can prove that the reports Kean promotes cannot be genuinely unexplainable, even alien in nature. The only logical assertion a skeptical view can establish is that the reports don't HAVE to be caused by aliens or unknown phenomena. Plenty of examples exist to show that pilots have made and doubtlessly will continue to make similar reports, even in the total absence of any genuinely unexplainable stimulus. Further, solving the last few percent of the stories can't be expected since the fewer that remain the harder they get to find the explanation for. This is a feature of the human 'explaining process', not necessarily a feature of the stimulus.
23. In real life, the same is true for murders, kidnappings, accidents, illnesses, all the catastrophes that befall humanity. We don't need to conjure up alien murderers or kidnappers to account for unsolved crimes, we realize that life's like that. Not finding Jimmy Hoffa isn't proof he must be on Mars.
24. The 'maybe not' assessment makes it even MORE important to keep eyes and minds open to vigorously observe, accurately perceive, and precisely relate unusual aerial perceptions, both for the chances something really new COULD be discovered, and for the chances that something critically important is masquerading, by accident or design, in a manner that might prompt too many people to pay too little attention to the sighting. Rejecting it ALL, or jumping to a blind alley's wild goose chase, are equally harmful.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Obviously that's a UFO being discussed in the video, but the question is, what is it? My guess is, most pilots, generals and government officials don't know as they have probably never even seen that video before.

I've seen that photo before and thought I'd read that it was explained satisfactorilly as the tail wing of the airliner, viewed at a sharply oblique angle through the multi-paned window that distorted the higher-angle image. Anybody else hear that too?