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

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174

Main Question or Discussion Point

... a new book by Leslie Kean.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307716848/?tag=pfamazon01-20

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
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Last edited:
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Wouldn't it make sense to read the book before commenting?

I can tell that you know little to nothing about this subject.
 
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
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?
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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
Gold Member
367
8
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
101
0
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.
 
101
0
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
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.
 
101
0
..
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
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
738
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.
 
Last edited:
101
0
Ad hoc dismissal? 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).

I think you need to go through your sentences and look up all the words in the dictionary, then think for a while and try and decipher what it is you are writing.

Here is a freebee.

conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot .
• the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Do you understand the difference between seeing something you can't identify, and a secret plot?
 
Last edited:
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
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.
I've raised my quality of discussion. Waiting on you.
 
101
0
I've raised my quality of discussion. Waiting on you.
Go to UFO napster sticky in the Skepticism and Debunking forum.

Credible accounts usually don't come from people trying to prove something. So it is hard to respond how you want. And how can I ascribe the likely hood of this "thing it is trying to prove"? In many cases I find it unlikely that multiple professionals including air traffic control, pilots for airlines, and the airforce, etc are in on a plot to fool everyone. I suppose that is possible though.

I however do find it plausible that in some of these cases the observers and instruments may have been honest in their descriptions. And I don't find it unlikely that some of these accounts are explainable, and some of these may be classified military craft. I have no solid convictions yet, but I calculate it is possible for a spacecraft to be of ET origins.

I have other ideas of what some of them could have been, but it might be a violation of forum rules to go too in depth about it.

I don't mean to be to harsh to you. I understand where your coming from. It is mind numbingly stupid what some people try and sell.
 
Last edited:
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
Credible accounts usually don't come from people trying to prove something. So it is hard to respond how you want. And how can I ascribe the likely hood of this "thing it is trying to prove"? In many cases I find it unlikely that multiple professionals including air traffic control, pilots for airlines, and the airforce, etc are in on a plot to fool everyone. I suppose that is possible though.

I however do find it plausible that in some of these cases the observers and instruments may have been honest in their descriptions.
Firstly, if you admit that "credible reports" and "compelling reports" are mutually exclusive, why bother putting any weight on the UFO phenomenon anyway?

Secondly, I return to my earlier quote "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It doesn't have to be a hoax or a plot to deceive. Instead, many people simply have never been confronted with something their brains have utterly failed to interpret. When encountered with that scenario, rather than go "geeze, I don't know" they ascribe it to ghosts, UFOs, angels, or some other nonsense.
 
101
0
Firstly, if you admit that "credible reports" and "compelling reports" are mutually exclusive, why bother putting any weight on the UFO phenomenon anyway?

Secondly, I return to my earlier quote "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It doesn't have to be a hoax or a plot to deceive. Instead, many people simply have never been confronted with something their brains have utterly failed to interpret. When encountered with that scenario, rather than go "geeze, I don't know" they ascribe it to ghosts, UFOs, angels, or some other nonsense.
Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's non-existent. It's mysterious and some people wonder what's going on. So when the government releases post classified documents which might shed more light on the mystery, curious people will be compelled to read it.

Calling it a UFO, is kind of like going geeze "I don't know". That is what is so mysterious about it.

I guess though it does imply that it is both flying, and an object. If it is in the air, and it is an object, I guess it is flying. The question is wether it is actually an object or not. One argument for the object idea, is they say, "only objects can be picked up on radar", I don't know if that is completely true?
 
FlexGunship
Gold Member
367
8
Well, everyone believes in "UFOs" in the strictest sense. I've seen plenty of airborne objects that I cannot identify. I've also had "non-normal" experiences in my home (will not call it paranormal).

My problem is when people anthropomorphisize the mystery. They claim aliens, pan-dimensional beings, ghosts, angels and other exotic things are governing what they see. There's simply no evidence for it. People simply assume that they are immune to trickery, confusion, and illusion; they assume that they are the only bastion of reason and rational thought so 'surely, i cannot be fooled.'

It doesn't have to be a hoax, just honest misunderstanding. I would be baffled too if I saw lights hovering over a barn that suddenly disappeared. But i would ask myself: "which is more rational: that I, alone or with a group, have become the sole recipient of final proof that intelligences beyond earth have discovered humans and are performing elaborate investigations by flying complex craft from their homeworld to a barn in the middle of nowhere... or that I just saw whatever?"

Here I use "whatever" as a stand-in for the complexities of human experience. Light shining off of a flock of birds. Atmospheric refraction. Swamp gas. Whatever! Which is honestly more likely? That I have the perfect frame of reference from which to judge the reality of what I'm seeing, or that I (like countless others) have been fooled by something, perhaps mundane, that I'm not equipped to comprehend.

Furthermore, if you admit that just one credible individual can make an honest mistake, why can't another? If there's one hoax, why not two? If one group is tricked by Venus, why not that other group? Wouldn't that be a reasonable way to think until actual proof arrives? Isn't that really the intellectual high-ground? Can you imagine what real proof would look like?

I know precisely what it would take to prove to me that the UFO phenomenon is attributable (in part) to extraterrestrial life. But do you know precisely what it would take for someone to prove to you that UFOs are NOT aliens?
 
Last edited:
101
0
Well, everyone believes in "UFOs" in the strictest sense. I've seen plenty of airborne objects that I cannot identify. I've also had "non-normal" experiences in my home (will not call it paranormal).

My problem is when people anthropomorphisize the mystery. They claim aliens, pan-dimensional beings, ghosts, angels and other exotic things are governing what they see. There's simply no evidence for it. People simply assume that they are immune to trickery, confusion, and illusion; they assume that they are the only bastion of reason and rational thought so 'surely, i cannot be fooled.'

It doesn't have to be a hoax, just honest misunderstanding. I would be baffled too if I saw lights hovering over a barn that suddenly disappeared. But i would ask myself: "which is more rational: that I, alone or with a group, have become the sole recipient of final proof that intelligences beyond earth have discovered humans and are performing elaborate investigations by flying complex craft from their homeworld to a barn in the middle of nowhere... or that I just saw whatever?"

Here I use "whatever" as a stand-in for the complexities of human experience. Light shining off of a flock of birds. Atmospheric refraction. Swamp gas. Whatever! Which is honestly more likely? That I have the perfect frame of reference from which to judge the reality of what I'm seeing, or that I (like countless others) have been fooled by something, perhaps mundane, that I'm not equipped to comprehend.
I think it depends on what you see. It might be the case that what you see, is not realistically explainable by swamp gas, or birds.
 

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

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Replies
69
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
49
Views
15K
Top