Leslie Kean on UFOs.

Originally posted by karl 12
Hey Jim have you managed to uncover any more information on that case and if so, could you post it in the relevant thread?

Here's the summary, but you're right, he didn't publish the exact time-of-day or other documentation, even though he shared that with me privately -- I'll have to email him for permission to release that.

www.anomalia.org...

Could you find out any intenret data on Trident launchings, independently?

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm not interested right now in what the sighting actually was, although the AF did say it was a weather balloon and included deploy logs in the Blue Book file. I've seen those documents -- don't you think you should see them too before jumping to a conclusion, or is too much evidence just too confusing?

Surely we all know that balloons was one of the official lines for 'unexplained' cases? It is possible, even easy, for the air force to fake deployment documents you know. They even have air force stationary and air force stamps to make them look just like the real thing. I bet the navy could fake naval documents too you know.

OK it could be balloons this time. Seems to be balloons an awful lot though in the 40's and 50's. Smells a funny colour to me.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Its a very frustrating subject to be in too. .

Perhaps if enough people agreed on a strategy of what to do, arguing over specific cases would be less central to the discussion. There remains such a wide array of potential hypotheses for some of the reports -- ranging from genuine ETI visits to military security drills testing how far and fast classified material spreads as gossip, to ad hoc cover stories for 'Broken Arrow' drills [as I witnessed while at Kirtland AFB in the early 1970s].

I still think our imaginations are only barely capable -- if even at all -- of conjuring up a relatively complete set of potential stimuli. These threads help.

The problem is, there are beliefs on both sides. Even some of the people using the word "critical thinking" are running on there belief system. Like i said before about the bad astromony forum. That site is the worst i have ever been on when it comes to de-bunking beliefs, and if you disagree with them, then you won't last 5 mins, and would be banned very quickly.

But then we have the other side of the coin, and that is the people who believe everything without evidence, and this side is full of these people A good example of this was the A. Fulham prediction of New York ... On Oct. 14, 2010. I could not believe what i was seeing. All these people saying the prediction came true, just because of a couple of balloons and misidentification with the new yourk cams that were just normal planes.

Lets be honest. At the moment, this subject is a mess, and it is not going to change anytime soon

Jim, that's the same old link you posted in the last thread - I take it there's no new information then.

I also see you accused another member of using 'avoidance mechanisms' - I take it you'll have no problem addressing some of Schaden's points in this post then.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Could you find out any intenret data on Trident launchings, independently?

No, probably not but then I'm not the one trying to pass the explanation off as 'conclusive' am I?

As I'm sure you're aware the Atlantic ocean is a pretty big place and if you can't even show where the missiles were being set off from then forgive me if I sound a bit sceptical - as another member also points out, the theory also doesn't take into acount all the eyewitness descriptions taken from the 100 page Spanish Air Force report:

Artist impression of transparent sphere with two tall occupants seen by a medical doctor and two other witnesses - Spanish Air Force Files:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ec9d67e3670.jpg[/atsimg]

link

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:

"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch
Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

UFO Sceptic

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


Kevin Randle makes some very good points there. He is right when he says de-bunkers and hardcore believers are pretty much the same, this is so true. Like i said before, its good to have sceptics look at this subject. My mind has been changed on many cases after listening to a sceptics point of view on a certain case.

As i said before, i look at these organisations like the sceptics society as an organised cult, or religon. Why do these people go out of their way to make a huge organisation like this? I mean, why bother. The simple fact of the matter is they like de-bunking. Yes, they always say that they want the evidence, but i don't think they really do at the end of the day.

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:

"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch
Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

UFO Sceptic

Cheers.

Bernard Haisch is spot on i feel in his summary of the attitudes and prejudices from most of the scientific minds regarding the ET connection to some UFOs;He hits the nail on the head so many times in his summary and offers a better insight from a respected mind of his nature; This text below from him hits the nail on the head for me;

Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!

link; www.ufoskeptic.org...

Thanks for the replies and I certainly agree with the comments about Bernard Haisch, mainstream science and debunking cults - there's a relevant article here which deals with prominent scientists asking for intensive, international study of the UFO subject as far back as 1968 and I also found it interesting that in this article it describes how chief scientific USAF advisor Dr J. Allen Hynek tried desperately to get the military to adopt more objective and analytical techiniques for Project Bluebook but was also completely ignored.

They've also been posted on these boards before but there's some pretty interesting statements and reports about mainstream science and the UFO subject below - I also think Brad Sparks makes some very good points in this video clip.

“Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?
Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch



“It’s about time we looked into [UFOs] as a worthy area of study. It’s important that the whole subject be brought out in the open and investigated.”
Professor Philip Haseley



"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987



"From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern.
That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona



“For nearly 40 years, the science establishment has ignored the UFO problem, relegating it to the domain of “true believers and mental imcompetents” (a.k.a. "kooks and nuts" [according to the former editor of Applied Optics magazine]).
Scientists have participated in a "self-cover-up" by refusing to look at the credible and well-reported data.
Furthermore, some of those few scientists who have studied UFO data have published explanations which are unconvincing or just plain wrong and have "gotten away with it" because most of the rest of the scientific community has not cared enough to analyze these explanations. The general rejection of the scientific validity of UFO sightings has made it difficult to publish analyses of good sightings in refereed journals of establishment science.”
Bruce Maccabee, optical physicist



“Over the past eighteen years I have acted as a scientific consultant to the U.S. Air Force on the subject of unidentified flying objects – UFO’s. As a consequence of my work on the voluminous air force files and, to a greater extent, of personal investigation of many puzzling cases and interviews with witnesses of good repute, I have long been aware that the subject of UFO’s could not be dismissed as mere nonsense".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

Cheers.

Leslie Kean's report on mainstream science's failure to address the UFO/UAP subject:

Unidentified aerial phenomena, otherwise known as UFOs, are real, not the stuff of science fiction. Something
for which there is no scientific explanation has been observed in America’s (and the world’s) air space for over
fifty-five years. Trained observers -- pilots, air traffic controllers, radar operators, astronauts, military personnel
-- and government agencies have reported and documented spectacular events visually, photographically, and on
radar..

Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf)

Originally posted by karl 12
Leslie Kean's report on mainstream science's failure to address the UFO/UAP subject:

Unidentified aerial phenomena, otherwise known as UFOs, are real, not the stuff of science fiction. Something
for which there is no scientific explanation has been observed in America’s (and the world’s) air space for over
fifty-five years. Trained observers -- pilots, air traffic controllers, radar operators, astronauts, military personnel
-- and government agencies have reported and documented spectacular events visually, photographically, and on
radar..

Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf)

Any idea which "astronaut cases" she has endorsed as unsolvable in prosaic terms?

Astronomer comments on Leslie Kean's new book:

Franklin Institute astronomer Derrick Pitts is one of this country’s leading scientific stars. He’s been named one of the Top 50 African-American research scientists, and he’s a media force, having appeared on MSNBC, The Colbert Report and The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson and hosted his own local weekly radio show on WHYY. So why, exactly, is he endorsing a book that is, well, pro-UFO?

Science is looking for ET in microbes these days—not via strange lights in the sky. But Pitts says the book UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean, pointed out to him by a colleague, motivated him to adopt a more … curious viewpoint. “I had the view, too, that UFOs were seen by hicks,” he admits. “But in this book you had really credible people reporting these experiences, and while I have no hard data to say what they report is an absolutely true experience, I came to think the stigma surrounding the subject is unfortunate.”

link

Originally posted by karl 12

Leslie Kean's report on mainstream science's failure to address the UFO/UAP subject:

Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf)

Astronomer comments on Leslie Kean's new book:

link

Hi karl 12, how is it buddy, I see that you still posting interesting stuff.

I did buy and has read Leslie Kean’s book and cannot say other than that it is all very well written and most interesting, especially about those huge crafts in the Belgium case.
And then seeing what Franklin Institute astronomer Derrick Pitts said there.

Science is looking for ET in microbes these days—not via strange lights in the sky.

That really made me chuckle.

Can you believe that?

reply to post by spacevisitor


Hey my friend, good to see you and I certainly agree about Leslie Kean's book, I also agree about mainstream science not doing anywhere near enough to objectively investigate the UFO phenomenon - as mentioned a few posts back, even the 'official' explanations for many of the 'solved' cases are an absolute laughing stock so maybe the only honest thing to do is to go back and completely re-examine all of these completely contrived 'debunks'.

As for UFO cases which do remain 'unexplained' and truly puzzling, I'm sure you've heard of many (if not all) of these incidents before but they've certain had me scratching my head over the years.

The Shag Harbour Incident

The RAF Boulmer Incident

The Little Rissington UFO Incident

The Edwards Air Force Base UFO Incident (1965)

The Stephenville/Dublin UFO Incidents

The US Coastguard Lake Erie UFO Incident

The Gosford Incident

The Minot AFB Incident (1968)

The Bariloche UFO Incident

The Bethune case (1951)

The Coyne Incident

The Tehran Incident

The Colares Incident

The Portage County Incident

The Exeter Puzzle Incident

The Canon AFB Incident (1976)

The Davis-Monthan AFB UFO Incident (1952)

The Red Bluff UFO Incident

The Yukon Territory UFO Incident (1996)

All the best mate.

reply to post by Jay-morris


Their motives are the same, but that's about it. We are, in most cases, referring to personality differences with respect for social influence, and their own inherent, self reflected, affectedly driven & aligned, expressive choices. These being most effected and predicted by their personality type.

It's old news that the dichotomy of skeptic and fanatic is a typical psychological polarization, but really, how do we stand to benefit? By finding the balance they lack, that's how. "Balance" seems to be the intelligent demand of the day and that's a very good thing.

I really don't see this described ultra common "de-bunker religious fringe" here on ATS, not nearly as much as I do the naive "stuck on & in the entertainment glitch" UFO "true believer" variety. Maybe it's just that I've been guilty enough of the latter to the effect that I can smell my former folly a mile away, I don't know. But I do know that I am reading ALL sides of the argument these days, and not just the ones I find to be "entertainingly preferred".

Whereas it's true that the present state of UFO research is ultimately frustrated on the "public front", I know that high profile science itself is looking harder at the phenomenon than it ever has before. That's what happens when a phenomenon becomes unavoidably apparent within any society, be it disease, war, gay marriage or UFOs. This is all so typical of human scientific progression with respect for our developmental evolution. Nothing new at all, and IMO, there is just no call for all the idle negativity that seems to point such an exaggerated finger of tainted disgust... at what exactly, the frickin' clock? Maybe we should add one small additional element to our "intelligent order of the day", namely, patience.

(and we all know how much it sucks to hear as much, but hey, show a little optimism. Science is NOT anyone's enemy, no matter how ridiculously slow it is. Remember, those cats are NOT into making mistakes the first time around. Kind of a good thing when working on science stuff, whether it be anti gravity, or anti venom.)

Originally posted by karl 12
even the 'official' explanations for many of the 'solved' cases are an absolute laughing stock

Hola mi amigo I fully agree with you here, many of those 'official' explanations are an absolute laughing stock, but we cannot other than to deal with that.

Originally posted by karl 12
As for UFO cases which do remain 'unexplained' and truly puzzling, I'm sure you've heard of many (if not all) of these incidents before but they've certain had me scratching my head over the years.

They are puzzling indeed, and thanks for posting this list because I did not heard of these ones before.

The RAF Boulmer Incident.

Looked it up and came at a site where it was posted by some Government Agent.
This is what caught my attention;

Then one went west of the other, as it manoeuvred it changed shape to become body-shaped with projections like arms and legs

Regarding that the shape was changed did remind me of the following.
I have an article from Linda Moulton Howe called; Abduction by Grey ETs in Huge, Black Triangle.
In there is stated;

The taller being kept telling me that time was only important to me. Time could be whatever they wanted it to be. And that size was irrelevant to them. I asked at one point how big their ship was because it looked massive. He said, 'It's whatever size we need it to be.'

What I also find so fascinating is that other witnesses said that the UFO is much bigger on the inside than what it appeared to be on the outside.
Really mind-blowing don’t you think?

The Gosford Incident.

Also new to me and looks very interesting to me, I found this video about it.

Geüpload door UFOHunter82 op 15 jul 2009
UFO Sucks Up Water From Lake Gosford Australia 1994

All the best mate.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Hey matey, thanks for the reply and apologies for the lateness of a response - those are certainly two extremely interesting UFO incidents you've posted about there (RAF Boulmer and Gosford] and I've absolutely no idea what those objects were

Maybe Leslie Kean has some opinons on these cases (or other points brought up in this thread] as it looks like JohnnyAnonymous is interviewng and acceptng questions for the author:


Leslie Kean, ATSLive Interview: Your Questions Answered


Cheers.

Angelia Joiner who conducted a lot of great research into the Stephensville UFO sightings (link) interviews Leslie Kean:


Video Link

Great thread by Xcathdra:

History channel announce two-hour special:

Commentary is provided by investigative journalist Leslie Kean, author of the NY Times bestseller UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, who spent ten years studying the UFO phenomenon and bringing together high level sources from around the world.

History channel announce Secret Access: UFOs on the Record

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.

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; and are in a much better position