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

Arbitrageur,

Thanks for posting the interesting videos, coverage of the Belgian wave quite fair, I thought.

You're right to say that in SOBEPS 2 Professor Meessen revises his analysis of the gendarme sightings of the night 30-31 March 1990 and of the F-16 chase that same night He discusses the exceptional meteorological conditions that night, which would have given rise to unusual atmospheric refraction effects that may have led the gendarmes to misinterpret configurations of bright stars like Sirius and Betelgeuse, together with the planet Jupiter, as triangular ufos. The same unusual meteorological conditions may, Meessen concludes, have led to misleading radar 'angels' on which the F-16's radars locked on. General Brouwer evidently disputes Meessen's conclusions, possibly having information not available to Meessen.

In view of all this, before making the last post I had already moved this March 30-31 sighting from 'unidentified' to the 'probable stars and angels' category. With dozens of sightings reports by hundreds of witnesses in the Hudson Valley and Belgian waves remaining 'unidentified', this one case hardly affects the statistics at all. So I continue to think that Professor Kaku and Leslie Kean are right to claim that the 5%, or whatever, appear 'different' from the 95%. I think Professors McDonald, Hynek, Sturrock and Meessen would have agreed with this. Jim Oberg seems to be the odd man out here.

And while Jim is deploying his excellent French on the two SOBEPS reports (I ordered them through Amazon.fr) it would be good to have his views on the Bob Pozzuoli videotape, as studied by Al Hibbs of JPL (two links below). On p 134 of Night Siege, Phil Imbrogno says that - before its study by Hibbs - when he, Imbrogno, refused to hand over the tape to the US government NSA agent 'Madison", the agent told him "You know, Phil, the government has done away with people for a lot less."

I don't think Imbrogno invented this story.


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

MSNBC:: UFO book based on questionable foundation
(Date: 8/27/2010 10:10:08 AM ET)

Interesting commentary by James Oberg.

The different behavior that is perceived by the two categories of pilots doesn't necessarily mean the unidentified flying objects themselves behave differently. It's more likely that different kinds of pilots draw upon differently developed instincts as they react to perceived threats — and thus they bring different interpretations to stimuli that are actually similar.

Thus, I am not dismayed by the fact that I can't explain every case Kean mentions in her book, because experience has shown that finding the real explanation — even if it turns out to be prosaic — is often a massive effort involving as much luck as sweat. If investigators are unable to find the explanation for a particular UFO case, that doesn't constitute proof that the case is unexplainable.

But a much simpler explanation makes more sense: The difference is due to "observer bias." People see what they expect to see, and combat pilots expect to encounter combative bogies. Civilian pilots mostly fear accidental collisions.

I agree with those statements above. When people watch an event unfold, we interpret them based upon a certain bias. Even though something cannot be explained by the general public or a pilot, that does not mean it cannot be explained.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by Section31


That may explain a pilot sighting that is a split second (although I think it an oversimplification of human reactions), it wouldn't explain an extended sighting.

My psychology side is coming to the surface again...
Rorschach Test
When people see things at a distance, regardless about exposure legnths, our minds fill in the blanks with what we want to see. Even though an object does not show details, we all have an subconscious ability to translate shapes (forms) into whatever we desire.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by Kandinsky


Kandinsky.....

My copy of the book will arrive in a couple of days.

Then we can see what we've got!

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

Hi Kandinsky, here is a short interview on Fox News with Leslie Kean, I must say that it is pretty serious handled and not as usual happens by making it look absolutely ridicules.

It looks to me as if there really is some change ongoing in approaching and handling this kind of information, even as it seems by the big media.

I assume that it must be clear now for more and more people that the phenomenon cannot be shuffled under the carpet anymore.

Perhaps the sayings of scientists like Stephen Hawkings lately and Michio Kaku at MSNBC in your thread has definitely opened some eyes.


Here is the link to that video.

ufosontherecord.com...

Well, when the SPACE JUNK? image appeared in this video I think that my conclusion above is not entirely correct.

I did not see it in that interview with Michio Kaku in the MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show “Michio Kaku comments UFOs and Leslie Kean's book” - Aug 23, 2010” one day earlier.

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show: Special guest Leslie Kean on UFO"s

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Section31


James Oberg does not mention the fact that there is radar data supporting many of the sightings in the book. you can't find the word "radar" in his article at all.

observed electromagnetic effects are not mentioned in the article.

I did not find in the article a convincing explanation for multiple witness sightings either.

only one source of info regarding the phenomenon is discussed -pilots-, taken out of context. and the reader is not told that there is a context in the form of radar, etc information. clearly a misrepresentation of facts.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by 911rs]

This is Leslie Kean's rebuttal of Jim Oberg's "review" of her book. Both the "review" and her rebuttal were published on MSNBC.com:

Source: www.msnbc.msn.com...
 
Skeptic misses point behind UFO book
Solid sightings cited in ‘UFOs’; serious investigation needed
 
By Leslie Kean
 
When I wrote my book about officially documented UFO reports, I fully expected the skeptics to react. That’s why I was careful to focus only on the very best evidence from the most credible sources in "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record." Since 95 percent of all sightings are eventually identified, the book is concerned only with the remaining 5 percent — those UFO events that have been thoroughly investigated, involve multiple witnesses and ample data, but still cannot be explained.

That didn’t stop James Oberg, a space analyst for NBC News, from complaining that the book was based on a “questionable foundation.”
In the biographical note appended to his commentary, he notes that he spent 22 years at NASA’s Mission Control and has written books about space policy and exploration. But he neglects to inform readers of something UFO researchers already know all too well: that he is a founding fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of thinking.

For many years, Oberg, while retaining his stance as an objective student of the UFO phenomenon, has been a consistently vocal skeptic.  His long list of articles dealing with UFOs date from the 1970s and are posted on his website under the heading "space folklore,"  which accurately sums up his attitude towards the subject. He may be qualified to serve as an unbiased, expert consultant on Russian or Chinese missile systems, but not on UFOs.
His objection to my many varied cases has to do with his notion that pilots are poor observers. To buttress this idea, he quotes J. Allen Hynek referring to questionable statistics compiled in the 1960s by Project Blue Book.  He also cites Russian researchers describing two events in 1982 when pilot sightings were accurately identified as "military balloons" after the fact.

This is not surprising, since the vast majority of sightings can be explained, and this kind of identification is made all the time. However, such solved sightings — whether made by pilots or anyone else — have absolutely nothing to do with the cases presented in my book.
I wonder if Oberg gave "UFOs" a careful read. He spent many paragraphs quoting me concerning a report on aviation cases by French researcher Dominique Weinstein. The problem is, those are not my quotes. The chapter from which he extracted them was written by Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of the French government‘s UFO agency for over 20 years, as is obvious in his byline and narrative about French research.
 
Oberg gleefully proclaims that I have “faithfully vouched for” the cases in Weinstein's list, but actually, I have respectfully allowed Velasco to write his own chapter.  (About half the chapters in my book were written by highly credentialed authorities and expert witnesses.) If Oberg wants to discuss the Weinstein study, he'll have to contact Velasco.
Oberg’s fixation on the question of the reliability of pilots as witnesses is not raised by the generals and aviation experts I have interviewed — officials who have studied pilot cases and interviewed pilot witnesses for decades.  As described in "UFOs," French Air Force Maj. Gen. Denis Letty initiated an extensive study of UFO data because competent pilots he knew personally were confronted by the phenomenon. Chilean Gen. Ricardo Bermudez was instrumental in the founding of his country‘s official UFO investigative agency in 1997 because of inexplicable sightings involving pilots.
Richard Haines, who has written more than 70 papers in leading scientific journals and published more than 25 U.S. government reports for NASA, was formerly chief of the space agency's Space Human Factors Office and served for 21 years as a retired senior aerospace scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center. Having studied pilot sightings and related aviation safety issues for more than 30 years, and having personally interviewed hundreds of pilots during that time, Haines has concluded that pilots are indeed excellent witnesses, given their thorough training, expertise and hours of flying time.

Haines is now chief scientist for the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. Sadly, most pilots never report their sightings, as he points out in "UFOs."

Most importantly, the aerial cases documented in "UFOs" — and many more on the record elsewhere — involve multiple factors such as:

• Sightings of long duration, allowing for accurate voice transmissions and the refinement of the initial identification.
• Multiple witnesses — co-pilot, crew, passengers, other aircraft in different locations, and occasionally observers from the ground.
• Onboard radar and ground radar recording the presence of a physical object, often corresponding exactly to the visual sighting.
• Direct physical effects on the aircraft, such as equipment malfunction.

As an example, Brig. Gen. Jose Periera of Brazil, commander of air force operations until 2005, reports on an "array of UFOs" observed over his country in 1986. Two pilots chased one of the objects for 30 minutes. Numerous other pilots saw the objects. Radar recorded them. Six jets were scrambled from two Brazilian air force bases to pursue them. Some of the pilots made visual contact corresponding to radar registrations. Both military and commercial pilots were involved. Onboard as well as ground radar systems confirmed the presence of the objects.

“We have the correlation of independent readings from different sources,” Periera writes. “These data have nothing to do with human eyes. When, along with the radar, a pilot‘s pair of eyes sees that same thing, and then another pilot‘s, and so on, the incident has real credibility and stands on a solid foundation.”

In 2007, airline captain Ray Bowyer saw two gigantic, bright yellow objects suspended over the English Channel, which he observed carefully for 15 minutes. His passengers saw them, another pilot on a second aircraft was also a witness, and an object was registered on radar.
In 1986, three Japan Airlines pilots watched a series of UFOs for 30 minutes, communicating with air traffic control while radar operators picked up the objects in corresponding locations.

I could go on with many more examples, presented in detail in the book.
Oberg says pilots may misinterpret visual phenomena when forced to make a split-second diagnosis before taking immediate action — very rare cases, I would assume — and no one would disagree with that. But, just as was the case with the solved Russian sightings I discussed earlier, this is entirely beside the point with respect to my book, because the cases presented do not involve such a scenario.

In addition, "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record" presents many other cases that do not involve pilots at all — but often military personnel and police officers — including:

• The famous 1980 incident near RAF Bentwaters in Britain, involving the landing of a UFO and objects sending beams of light to the ground.
• The 1981 "Trans-en-Provence" landing case in France, investigated by the official French agency GEPAN.
• Belgian Maj. Gen. Wilfried De Brouwer‘s report on the wave of sightings in Belgium in 1989-90, which includes a spectacular photograph.
• The 1993 "Cosford Incident" involving a UFO over two Air Force bases in Britain, investigated by the Ministry of Defense.
• The 1997 Phoenix Lights incident that former Arizona Gov. Fife Symington described.

These are just a few of a host of cases with abundant data that don't rely on pilot observations — and which are still unsolved. It‘s the aggregate of cases, the accumulation of evidence and the long-running but unsuccessful attempts of qualified experts to resolve them that establishes the reality of a yet-unexplained physical phenomenon with extraordinary capabilities.
Oberg says that "if investigators are unable to find the explanation for a particular UFO case, that doesn't constitute proof that the case is unexplainable.” Fair enough. Perhaps there is some prosaic explanation still to be discovered. There‘s always that possibility, no matter how small.
But we remain in a state of ignorance concerning UFOs, leaving us with the conclusion presented in the book: We need a systematic, scientific investigation of the skies that actively looks for these mysterious and elusive objects.  In the meantime, all I ask is that devout skeptics like Oberg read the entire book before raising objections that actually have no bearing on the matter at hand.

Investigative journalist Leslie Kean is the author of the New York Times bestseller "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record" (Harmony/Crown).  Her work has appeared in many publications including The Nation, International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe.  She is also the co-author of “Burma’s Revolution of the Spirit” and co-founder of the Coalition for Freedom of Information.
© 2010 MSNBC Interactive.  Reprints

Originally posted by 911rs
James Oberg does not mention the fact that there is radar data supporting many of the sightings in the book. you can't find the word "radar" in his article at all.

observed electromagnetic effects are not mentioned in the article.

Look harder.

reply to post by vimanaboy


Oberg just sounds like a douche.

Srsly

They all keep ignoring the stealth blimp theory. www.thestealthblimp.com...

Originally posted by Faiol
there is nothing to debunk here ... its just a great video ... the book probably contains a lot of the most interesting cases ...

its not going to prove anything, but for the UFO enthusiasts may be a good pick up

Good for the skeptic also. Well written, factual and valuable. The book sets out to convince the reader of a number of things. The existence and our visitation by aliens are NOT among them. I have read it and highly recommend it for everyone and anyone.

It is good to see that he says that contact with ET is inevitable, but mark my words: There will be no disclosure of ET's.
There is a reason that they are not disclosing them self and why the government is hiding. An other point is they are hostile and we need to watch out for them. Also the American government is not going to disclose that they have ET technology or they were/are working with ET. The only maximum possible disclosure that I see is that USA is going to release some UFO documents like other countries did. But that is not something new. That is old stuff and we will not find something new. But still there will be no disclosure. You can wait until you become old.

reply to post by WHOS READY




Hi WHOS READY

Read the FREE e.book on ATS Aliens and UFO's entitled "The TRUE story behind the hoax

Heard Round the World" Then if you still want to fork out your hard earned CASH on that book

..................................The choice is yours !!..........................

reply to post by spacevisitor

What gets me is how when he is asked about the possibility of alien life or if he teaches it at University, he without losing pace starts talking about the physics which will be opened up in the future.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

What gets me is how when he is asked about the possibility of alien life or if he teaches it at University, he without losing pace starts talking about the physics which will be opened up in the future.

I really cannot imagine or cannot believe that a man like Michio Kaku is not aware of the Alien presence here on Earth, so logically therefore also being aware of Alien life out there.

But I think that he cannot speak about that in public for certain reasons.

Because when scientists or whomever coming forward in public by saying that UFOs or UAPs are real, or that it could be possible that there is Alien life out there would hold no risks whatsoever, as you can see how he do that in the video.

But when scientists like in this case Michio Kaku would coming forward in public by saying that UFOs or UAPs are real and definitely connected with extraterrestrial beings and therefore confirms that Aliens are already here, that would be a whole other ballgame.

You can also see that happen with how Stephen Hawking’s speak about that subject.

Hello! I bought and read most of this book. It is an excellent book of eye witness accounts, but it offers no explainations.
I can only read one or two sightings at a time. It usually puts me to sleep bacause it is loaded with technical details of
the circumstances. It is an awsome book though. It is a book for anyone who has seen things in life they can't explain and want to validate to themselves they are not crazy. I think maybe the UFOs emitt some kind of radio wave that tampers with the brain waves of anyone who sees one. I get this from the difficulty of remembering what I saw for a min. sighting, and my neighbor who saw one flying low over the tree line near a dam. I wrote mine down on paper to show my husband what happened, and then set it aside, and later picked it back up. So I know it happened, and I didn't dream it. He not did want to believe me. I think we are being observed, I think the number may be much higher than 5%, this may be what the scientist says to cover himself from redicule. I really feel our society and governments and most humans are very disfunctional, selfish, greedy, lazy, and unthinking. It is hard for people to separarte themselves from their daily dramas and daily scheduals of work to think of larger ideas. If we had our act together we would have no wars, no starvation, no diseases, a clean planet on clean energy. Money is not what should be most important, if we all shared more and spent time on one another this planet would be a happier functional place. It makes you wonder why it is the way it is.

Originally posted by 911rs
James Oberg does not mention the fact that there is radar data supporting many of the sightings in the book. you can't find the word "radar" in his article at all.

observed electromagnetic effects are not mentioned in the article.

I did not find in the article a convincing explanation for multiple witness sightings either.

only one source of info regarding the phenomenon is discussed -pilots-, taken out of context. and the reader is not told that there is a context in the form of radar, etc information. clearly a misrepresentation of facts.

Yes good point about radar and E.M. effects 911rs - it's been mentioned to Jim over on this thread about pilot UFO sightings so it's not as if he's completely ignorant of the fact.

I also think he's aware of the true percentage of actual unknowns so it's all a bit of a mystery as to why he never mentions it (link).

Here's Leslie Keen discussing Jim's 'obfuscation' and his 'weak effort' to try to undermine the good response the book has been receiving - see 11:00





Cheers.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Oh agreed 100%!!!

I can not look at the top Physicists or Scientists without think the same. Michio Kaku seems to have that "Knowing" smile behind his speech, I read so much more into what he has to say and truly devour each word as well as the silence between the words that he shares for 'hints'.

Also totally agree that while we are being visited, the interest in humanity is negligent on the part of the keepers of the planet, they the Aliens who monitor the planet like maintenance men, are here for reasons other than humanity and do not get involved as such.

To clarify my last statement, I do think that there are other off worlders/dimensionals who do have a connection scientifically to our DNA and progress of evolution.