Register to reply

UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

by Ivan Seeking
Tags: generals, government, officials, pilots, record, ufos
Share this thread:
Ivan Seeking
#1
Sep6-10, 06:59 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
... a new book by Leslie Kean.
http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-.../dp/0307716848

I don't normally promote something like this, but I was struck by Stephen Colbert's soft-glove treatment of Kean when she appeared on his show recently. I have always liked Kean, so eventually I planned to get around to reading this. But after reading the reviews, cripes, this sounds pretty good! I guess I had better get a copy on its way. If anyone has read this, reviews are welcome.

Review
"At last, a serious and thoughtful book about this controversial subject. Skeptics and true believers will find a treasure trove of insightful and eye opening information. This book is bound to set the gold standard for UFO research."
—Michio Kaku, Ph.D. Author of Physics of the Impossible and host of Sci Fi Science on the Science Channel

“I was astonished by the care and precision of Leslie Kean’s research in this terrific book. Her analysis is carefully reasoned and to the point; her craftsmanship in organization and writing are superb. Her expose' raises important questions: Why does the US government create public distrust by neglecting this important topic? Why do its agencies avoid investigating cases of interference with flight operations and instead issue absurd cover-up stories? This book is ultimately an appeal to all scholars for an "extraordinary investigation of an extraordinary phenomenon.”
—Rudy Schild, Ph.D., Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

“Like me, Leslie Kean is an agnostic on the issue of UFOs. Her book is a fine piece of journalism - not about beliefs, but about facts. Kean presents the most accurate, most credible reports on UFO's you will ever find. She has fought long and hard to discover the facts and let the chips fall where they may. She may not have the final smoking gun, but I smell the gunpowder.”
—Miles O'Brien, former CNN space/science correspondent

“I find explanations offered by UFO enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists to be implausible, but I also have little patience with "deniers" who ridicule credible reports. Leslie Kean has found a thoughtful path between extreme views, documenting the UFO mystery with intelligence and insight. She makes a strong case for U.S. participation in official, international UFO investigations and for public dissemination of the results. The fascinating first-hand accounts make this a thought-provoking book, even for those of us who don’t know much about UFOs.”
—Neal Lane, Ph.D., Rice University; former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

“If you don't know much about UFOs, you must read this book. If you think that UFO reports are nonsense, this book will disabuse you of that notion. Leslie Kean's UFOs informs readers at every level of knowledge and belief. It could, and should, become the "tipping point" that leads to public acceptance of the reality of UFOs and all of its implications.”
—Don Donderi, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, McGill University (Ret.)

“In an area of study where there aren’t many, this is a serious book. It is credible, clear, and compelling, without any farfetched jumps in logic and assumption. Its credibility begins on the first page with John Podesta and continues with case studies of extraordinary quality to the very end. Leslie Kean not only makes the case for, but calls for, a whole new concrete and realistic perspective on UFOs that has more honesty and integrity than any other that I have read. This is a book for anyone with an open mind.”
—John L. Petersen, Founder & President of The Arlington Institute

“In these pages we are confronted head-on by the UFO phenomenon as revealed firsthand by highly credible government officials and military aviation experts. Their credibility and integrity cannot be questioned, and their firsthand observations cannot be ignored. Leslie Kean provides a challenging analysis and she writes with penetrating depth and insight. The revelations in this book constitute a watershed event in lifting the taboo against rational discourse about this controversial subject.”
—Harold E. Puthoff, Ph.D., Director of The Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

“When I started reading Leslie Kean’s UFOs, I found it very difficult to stop. This is an unprecedented assessment of what may be the greatest challenge ever presented to mankind. In an outstanding piece of investigative journalism, Kean provides a well-written and convincing appeal for change in dealing with a phenomenon that can no longer be ignored.”
—Jean-Claude Ribes, Ph.D., Paris Observatory (Ret.)

“For anyone who questions why - after more than fifty years of denial, ridicule, and dismissal - many scientists, academics, political figures, and military personnel still insist that the subject of UFOs should be taken seriously, this book provides the answer. Leslie Kean offers compelling documentation that physical objects, with flight characteristics not yet achievable by known technology, are being routinely reported in our skies. They represent a mystery that needs to be solved.”
—Stuart Appelle, Ph.D., Dean of the School of Science and Mathematics, State University of New York, Brockport

"Leslie Kean’s astonishing book is the finest piece of investigative journalism ever written on this subject. She has an incomparable ability to ‘give voice’ to a constituency of exceptionally qualified and unbiased first-hand observers. They are not from the fringe, not groupies, and not delusional. Rather, they are high-level military, intelligence, aerospace, and government officials who speak with authority while providing reports that document actual, physical craft. Kean’s book represents the first important step toward a new U.S. government openness about UFOs. It brings forward a reality otherwise buried for far too long inside official mystery, and elevates the discourse above that of small-minded public discussions."
—Christopher C. Green, MD, Ph.D., Harper University Hospital, Wayne State University School of Medicine
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Security CTO to detail Android Fake ID flaw at Black Hat
Huge waves measured for first time in Arctic Ocean
Mysterious molecules in space
Ivan Seeking
#2
Sep7-10, 01:27 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Digital downloads are now available from Amazon.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...59#post2869759

A good sign - the foreward was written by the former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, John Podesta.
FlexGunship
#3
Sep7-10, 02:16 PM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
I'm not sure I can take any UFO books seriously, anymore. The most honest treatment of any UFO sighting would end in the phrase: "...or it could've been, you know, whatever."

Frankly, people put too much credence on their own observations. The human sensory system is amazing by any standard; really, a marvel of biological engineering and evolutionary achievement. But, c'mon, we're routinely fooled by optical illusions, tricked peripheral aberrations, and stumped by lateral inhibition.

I've seen UFOs. For real. But I certainly don't ascribe them to alien intelligences (as many do)... I simply disregard them as "you know, whatever."

That being said, maybe this book doesn't handle UFOs in the traditional manner. Kaku seems to have something nice to say; but then again, he's been getting more and more fanciful the whiter his hair gets.

Ivan Seeking
#4
Sep7-10, 02:57 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

Wouldn't it make sense to read the book before commenting?

I can tell that you know little to nothing about this subject.
FlexGunship
#5
Sep7-10, 03:04 PM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Wouldn't it make sense to read the book before commenting?

I can tell that you know little to nothing about this subject.
Well, I think I was fair in my disclaimer. I stated clearly that I didn't know how the book handled UFOs. But don't you think it's fair to say that most books treat UFOs as though they were intelligently controlled craft?

Furthermore, if you read the description on Amazon (which you didn't quote), you can see that the author seems to harbor (hide?) the idea that UFOs might actually be intelligently controlled aircraft (or spacecraft).

I agree that it fun to fantasize about this stuff! Wouldn't it be cool if an alien civilization discovered life on a distant planet out here on the Western Spiral Arm of the Milky Way?

But it's a bit silly to think that their best scientific minds (the same ones responsible for creating their incredible spacecraft) drafted proposals for first contact situations. Submitted them for review, debated for years, and carefully selected the crews to make first contact with new life. They then chose the best pilots for these spacecraft, trained them for years, fueled up and set off to meet human beings.

Finally... they arrive at Earth. And they just dick around with airplanes, and buzz corn fields, and blink lights over cities?!

Can't we get past the "alien" theory?

EDIT: BTW, I just ordered the book. I'll have a look.
Ivan Seeking
#6
Sep7-10, 09:06 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
Well, I think I was fair in my disclaimer. I stated clearly that I didn't know how the book handled UFOs. But don't you think it's fair to say that most books treat UFOs as though they were intelligently controlled craft?
That has nothing to do with my response. And I don't know what "most UFO books say", however I do know a bit about the facts. I can tell by the nature of your comments that you know little about the subject.

If you want to start a thread to learn the basics, go ahead, but please don't derail this thread with uninformed comments.

You might want to review the UFO napster at the top of the page, before commenting further. There you will find many of the cases that Kean addresses in her book.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805
russ_watters
#7
Sep7-10, 09:51 PM
Mentor
P: 22,243
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
Furthermore, if you read the description on Amazon (which you didn't quote), you can see that the author seems to harbor (hide?) the idea that UFOs might actually be intelligently controlled aircraft (or spacecraft).
I get that impression from this sort of thing all the time. From the description in Amazon:
Throughout, she presents irrefutable evidence that unknown flying objects—metallic, luminous, and seemingly able to maneuver in ways that defy the laws of physics—actually exist.

No one yet knows what these objects are, even though they affect aviation safety and possibly national security.
Actual fying objects that seem to defy the laws of physics. Theres's really only two possibilities about what "these objects" are:

1. Military aircraft/spacecraft with capabilities well beyond what non-military scientists are aware is possible (ie, the government has its own laws of physics that are different than what is known outside of government).

2. Alien spacecraft (also operating on different laws of physics than what is accepted by scientists).

These possibilities are inescapable and profound and mentioned very briefly on her website, but only briefly and are only hinted at obliquely here. Why? Why avoid dealing with the stakes of the game?
mugaliens
#8
Sep7-10, 10:20 PM
P: 595
Does her book mention the Russian UFO, as seen briefly, here?
Ivan Seeking
#9
Sep7-10, 10:22 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I get that impression from this sort of thing all the time. From the description in Amazon: Actual fying objects that seem to defy the laws of physics. Theres's really only two possibilities about what "these objects" are:

1. Military aircraft/spacecraft with capabilities well beyond what non-military scientists are aware is possible (ie, the government has its own laws of physics that are different than what is known outside of government).

2. Alien spacecraft (also operating on different laws of physics than what is accepted by scientists).

These possibilities are inescapable and profound and mentioned very briefly on her website, but only briefly and are only hinted at obliquely here. Why? Why avoid dealing with the stakes of the game?
If you wish to artificially limit the possibilities, that's your leap of faith, not hers or mine. The general consensus, according to her, according to the officials involved, is precisely what I've been saying for years: No one really knows what is going on. We only know that there are plenty of cases that are well supported, exotic, and unexplained. Sometimes they do clearly involve objects that are structured crafts, or appear to be, by all accounts. They also show up on one or more RADAR screens, in some cases.

The problem is that many people cannot simply accept the facts, according to the best information available, without drawing conclusions. That is why, for example, I have had to explain many times that "UFO" does not automatically imply alien spacecraft. In fact the military started using the term UFO to avoid such automatic implications. Dr. Haines, a well knows researcher, had adopted the term UAP - unidentified aerial phenomenon - to further generalize the concept as per the range of the reports.
Ivan Seeking
#10
Sep7-10, 10:58 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Is it being argued that highly credible and well supported reports, including those coming from official government sources, such as the FAA, the DOD, the NSA, or the CIA, should be accepted, or rejected, based on the expectations of the investigator? Should language and descriptions that might be suggestive of an ET presense be deleted for the sake of comfort?
FlexGunship
#11
Sep8-10, 07:21 AM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
If you want to start a thread to learn the basics, go ahead, but please don't derail this thread with uninformed comments.
Ad hoc dismissal? Dissenting ideas aren't welcome? I hadn't realized that UFO conspiracy theories were tolerated on PF (this is my first time mucking about in the Skepticism and Debunking section).

How about you read the basics about honest inquiry into this subject? I understand I'm replying to someone with significantly more posts than me so I'm trying to retain a significant amount of respect.

Keep in mind this phenomenon consists of observations of objects that have the follow characteristics:
I'm sure people who see UFOs honestly believe whatever they say. ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.") But, honestly, can't we get past the idea at this point? It was fun for... maybe, 30 years.

EDIT: I tried my best not to pick from single sources too much. And, where possible, I always used an article from a major newspaper. However, you'll notice that some sources are less than reliable. My point is that they run the full spectrum.
FlexGunship
#12
Sep8-10, 07:58 AM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Digital downloads are now available from Amazon.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...59#post2869759

A good sign - the foreward was written by the former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, John Podesta.
Also, Podesta isn't as impartial as you might believe... he has a conspiracy fetish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta#Recent_years).
jreelawg
#13
Sep8-10, 07:17 PM
P: 450
Come on, really? You want to add to the discussion with a statement that all documented UFO sightings can be explained by "what ever". It really makes no sense. Rather than adding anything to the discussion, your just obfuscating it.

If your going to partake in a serious discussion, as a skeptic, you have to be a little more mature than that don't you?

Perhaps you could pick one of the most "convincing UFO sightings", and explain your theory that it could have been whatever.
jreelawg
#14
Sep8-10, 07:20 PM
P: 450
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
Also, Podesta isn't as impartial as you might believe... he has a conspiracy fetish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta#Recent_years).
In what way does that link support the statement he has a conspiracy fetish?

And I'm sure you probably mean conspiracy theory fetish right?
jreelawg
#15
Sep8-10, 07:30 PM
P: 450
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
Ad hoc dismissal? Dissenting ideas aren't welcome? I hadn't realized that UFO conspiracy theories were tolerated on PF (this is my first time mucking about in the Skepticism and Debunking section).

How about you read the basics about honest inquiry into this subject? I understand I'm replying to someone with significantly more posts than me so I'm trying to retain a significant amount of respect.

Keep in mind this phenomenon consists of observations of objects that have the follow characteristics:
I'm sure people who see UFOs honestly believe whatever they say. ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.") But, honestly, can't we get past the idea at this point? It was fun for... maybe, 30 years.

EDIT: I tried my best not to pick from single sources too much. And, where possible, I always used an article from a major newspaper. However, you'll notice that some sources are less than reliable. My point is that they run the full spectrum.
Honestly, I do not get it? You compile a long list of links. You say sure some of them are not credible. You say your point is that "they" (I guess your referring to the internet?) cover everything. But then to help obfuscate what the big idea your trying to get across you add some quote about malice and stupidity.

If I had to guess what your trying to say, it's "see, here are a bunch of links", now you guys are going to take me serious, it now appears I do have some knowledge of the subject. It would be nice to hear your explanation of what your point of the malice and stupidity quote is supposed to mean in this context.
FlexGunship
#16
Sep8-10, 07:54 PM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
Eh, your criticism is fair enough. I don't take the phenomenon very seriously anymore, so you're right to say I didn't handle it very maturely.

Allow me to state my position formally: the UFO phenomenon readily accepts into it such a widely varied set of observations unquestioningly that ANY investigation is suspect. The entire realm is so muddled with inane reports that it is impossible to take them seriously. The terms on which a single report is deemed "reliable" is arbitrarily determined by a person's credentials and not be the evidence supporting their claim.

As such, I'd invite you to point towards a single claim that includes with it a significant amount of evidence that does not rely on the credibility of eye-witness observers. Furthermore, the evidence must be compelling enough such that's its fabrication is LESS likely than the thing which it is trying to prove.
jreelawg
#17
Sep8-10, 08:00 PM
P: 450
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
..
But it's a bit silly to think that their best scientific minds (the same ones responsible for creating their incredible spacecraft) drafted proposals for first contact situations. Submitted them for review, debated for years, and carefully selected the crews to make first contact with new life. They then chose the best pilots for these spacecraft, trained them for years, fueled up and set off to meet human beings.

Finally... they arrive at Earth. And they just dick around with airplanes, and buzz corn fields, and blink lights over cities?!
It's a bit silly to assume that the engineers of the spacecrafts would be the ones to draft the expedition proposals.

It is also kind of silly to assume that they would necessarily send live biological crews rather than just robots.

And third, it is silly to assume they necessarily intended to make contact with humans.

And lastly, say they were/are here, how would you know that all they came to do is duck around planes..... etc.

My point is that your attacking a straw man.
Chronos
#18
Sep8-10, 08:06 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,380
UFO's are a real puzzle to me, as well. Clearly, people have been seeing something over the years, but, what is a mystery. Their behavior is enigmatic. If piloted by alien intelligence, it is an intelligence unlike our own. Then again, their technology is also unlike our own. Our inability to fathom their purposes may not be unlike the paleo indians when confronted with europeon technology. Personally, I doubt the government knows a great deal more than the general public. In that case, their reluctance to comment is understandable. Perhaps they [the aliens] hold us in contempt, but, try do the 'humane' thing - avoid causing needless panic while going about whatever business they are conducting.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Mexican Air Force Pilots Videotape UFOs General Discussion 49
Government Private Contractors Now Outnumber Government Employees Current Events 8
Government officials that have been attacked by other government officials? Current Events 1
US Government and UFOS General Discussion 5
Scientists record new internet speed record Computing & Technology 11