| Thread Closed |
UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Sep6-10, 06:59 PM | #1 |
|
|
UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record
... 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. |
| Sep7-10, 01:27 AM | #2 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep7-10, 02:16 PM | #3 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep7-10, 02:57 PM | #4 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep7-10, 03:04 PM | #5 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep7-10, 09:06 PM | #6 |
|
|
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 |
| Sep7-10, 09:51 PM | #7 |
|
Mentor
|
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? |
| Sep7-10, 10:20 PM | #8 |
|
Blog Entries: 1
|
Does her book mention the Russian UFO, as seen briefly, here?
|
| Sep7-10, 10:22 PM | #9 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep7-10, 10:58 PM | #10 |
|
|
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?
|
| Sep8-10, 07:21 AM | #11 |
| Sep8-10, 07:58 AM | #12 |
|
|
|
| Sep8-10, 07:17 PM | #13 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep8-10, 07:20 PM | #14 |
|
|
And I'm sure you probably mean conspiracy theory fetish right? |
| Sep8-10, 07:30 PM | #15 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep8-10, 07:54 PM | #16 |
|
|
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. |
| Sep8-10, 08:00 PM | #17 |
|
|
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. |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| 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 | ||