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

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Government
In summary: Leslie Kean has written the book to prove them right. She takes us on a compelling journey from the earliest reports of unidentified flying objects to the most recent revelations, and she presents the evidence in an intelligent, well-organized, and convincing manner. I highly recommend UFOs to anyone with an interest in this complex and controversial topic.” —Donald E. Keyhoe, Ph.D., Former Director, USAF Scientific Advisory Committee In summary, Leslie Kean's new book investigates the phenomenon of UFOs and presents evidence that suggests the US government is aware of them and has been involved in some way.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,756
... 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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #4
Wouldn't it make sense to read the book before commenting?

I can tell that you know little to nothing about this subject.
 
  • #5
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #6
FlexGunship said:
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
 
  • #7
FlexGunship said:
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:
  • #9
russ_watters said:
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:
  • #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?
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
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:
  • #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.
 
  • #14
FlexGunship said:
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?
 
  • #15
FlexGunship said:
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:
  • #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.
 
  • #17
FlexGunship said:
..
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 spacecraft s 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.
 
  • #18
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:
  • #19
FlexGunship said:
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:
  • #20
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #21
FlexGunship said:
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:
  • #22
jreelawg said:
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.
 
  • #23
FlexGunship said:
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?
 
  • #24
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:
  • #25
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #26
FlexGunship said:
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?

First of all I am leaning towards classified military objects. It would be hard for me to be convinced without a shadow of a doubt that they are alien, because even if I saw little grey men who can communicate telepathically with me, they could just be genetically engineered monkeys for all I know. A lot of people are convinced Man could not have possessed/ doesn't possesses technology advanced enough, so UFO's must be from space.

An alternative to both is that the UFO phenomena is an advanced highly technological hoax.

One hypothesis I had once, to explain the sightings which involve seaming intelligently controlled balls of light. Is that it is some kind of plasma, hologram in a way.

I've wondered about this. If you took, two beams or more, and directed them, so that they cross paths, perhaps depending on the nature of the whole thing. Maybe you could get the effect of a light shining at the point where they meet. Then you control both of them just right, and you can move that light around in the sky? Maybe you can make 3 or more appear and with the help of CPU's make them look fixed and move them around real fast.

I don't really know, to be honest this is my most convincing explanation I have to myself for a UFO I saw, which consisted of three lights in a triangle which moved across the night sky in "impossible ways. Crazy as it sounds? The things which motivate this idea for me are

1: This way the laws of physics as we know them were not violated
2: There was what I decided sounded a lot like a 747 flying overhead just prior to the sighting both times I observed this.
3: Both time I observed this, there were specific atmospheric conditions, which in my head may be a key factor.
4: The second sighting, the 3 lights behaved in a seemingly reckless manner, in my mind if it was an object it should have crashed an burned, hit a tree, or the ground.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
jreelawg said:
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.

Well, that's my point! To the observer, they might be 100% sure that what they experienced is impossible to explain by mundane methods, but it has already happened at least once. Someone experienced the most fantastical thing in the history of their cognitive existence, and it was shown to be a balloon. That doesn't invalidate the awe-inspiring feeling they had. In fact, it might even cause them to embellish the story when confronted with dissenting facts.

I'm an avid amateur astronomer, and a hobbyist astro-photographer. I spend a lot of time staring into the sky. I've been stumped plenty of times. I once thought i saw an iridium flare. For real. Not "what was that"-catch-it-out-of-the-corner-of-my-eye type of vision. I really thought I saw one. But I was forced to admit that I didn't after consulting a timing table. So what did I see? A UFO? No. Probably just a saturated cone or rod in my eye. My brain interpreted it as something else, and tried to fit it with an experience I recognized from earlier.

We are all susceptible.
 
  • #28
jreelawg said:
First of all I am leaning towards classified military objects. It would be hard for me to be convinced without a shadow of a doubt that they are alien, because even if I saw little grey men who can communicate telepathically with me, they could just be genetically engineered monkeys for all I know. A lot of people are convinced Man could not have possessed/ doesn't possesses technology advanced enough, so UFO's must be from space.

Advanced technology? But where? I haven't seen any evidence of anything yet. I was hoping you would cite a case that would somehow change my mind. Something where electrical components were recovered from a crash and examined, and are still on display available for additional testing.

Don't you ever become doubtful? Isn't there a critical point when you've heard enough stories that have no supporting evidence that you just say "okay, forget it... I'll wait until some real evidence comes along"?

Would you be taught Maxwell's equations if they were based on unrepeatable eye witness accounts?
 
  • #29
FlexGunship said:
Advanced technology? But where? I haven't seen any evidence of anything yet. I was hoping you would cite a case that would somehow change my mind. Something where electrical components were recovered from a crash and examined, and are still on display available for additional testing.

Don't you ever become doubtful? Isn't there a critical point when you've heard enough stories that have no supporting evidence that you just say "okay, forget it... I'll wait until some real evidence comes along"?

Would you be taught Maxwell's equations if they were based on unrepeatable eye witness accounts?

I actually thought the same thing as you before, but I saw some crazy ####. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my one person observation seriously. Like you said the mind can play tricks. What I saw, was beyond what can be explained as something mundane, and in order to agree it was my mind playing tricks on me, I would have to assume I am completely losing my mind.

I put the I'm losing my mind hypothesis last, just after alien craft. The order I have in likeliness according to me

1: high tech hoax
2: high tech craft
3: high tech alien craft
4: losing my mind

The hoax idea seams strange, because why? It doesn't make sense does it? I don't know, maybe someone wants to appear to the enemy more advanced than they are. Maybe someone is trying to string along Iran on a wild goose chase for anti-gravity technology, get China to waste money? Who knows? Maybe just the ability to deceive in general is valuable. Maybe it is some rich tycoon trying to play the ultimate prank on the world?
 
Last edited:
  • #30
mugaliens said:
Does her book mention the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"?
It's pretty clear in the video that the object doesn't accelerate away from the Mig as is claimed but rather the mig slows its rate of turn. Watch the clouds. I don't really know what it is, but what we see in the video is consistent with something as simple as a mig chasing a blimp!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
If you wish to artificially limit the possibilities, that's your leap of faith, not hers or mine.
That's what logic dictates, Ivan. What other possibilities do you see?
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.

The problem is that many people cannot simply accept the facts, according to the best information available,
The facts are not of scientific quality - that's why they are not accepted. Your position, dismissing reasonable skepticism, is anti-science.
...without drawing conclusions.
The purpose of scientific inquiry is to get answers - to draw conclusions. There is no other reason to do it. Furthermore, humans are hard-wired to draw conclusions. It's our nature and is essentially impossible to avoid, even if it were desirable, which it isn't. It is unscientific and disingenuous to claim that one can do decades of research and not even come up with potential/tentative conclusions. It's also counterproductive since failure to properly apply scientific thought to these sightings can result in incorrect conclusions being drawn.
 
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
No. Heck, I won't even stipulate to the premise of the question! I have *never* seen a UFO report that made me stand up and say "Wow, I think that's an alien spacecraft !" like proponents of the Mexican Air Force sighting said I should. And in cases like that one, my skepticism has served me well, whereas the wishful thinking/grasping at straws of the UFO crowd has served them poorly.
Should language and descriptions that might be suggestive of an ET presense be deleted for the sake of comfort?
No, it is being suggested that language suggestive of ET is being deleted/not used for the sake of comfort by the author. The impression given is leading us toward a conclusion, then not explicitly stating what that conclusion is. It is argument by inuendo and you did something similar above when you said my conclusions were limited without explaining what the alternatives are.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
jreelawg said:
Perhaps you could pick one of the most "convincing UFO sightings", and explain your theory that it could have been whatever.
According to many, the Mexican Air Force UFO sighting of a few years ago was an extremely convincing sighting of alien spacecraft ...which turned out to be oil rigs. The conclusion a skeptic must draw from that is that in the absence of convincing proof of a mundane explanation, many UFO advocates jump to the alien spacecraft conclusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
russ_watters said:
mugaliens said:
Does her book mention the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"?

It's pretty clear in the video that the object doesn't accelerate away from the Mig as is claimed but rather the mig slows its rate of turn. Watch the clouds. ..

Good catch, but there is more. Mind that you're observing in two dimensions on the film an apparent object moving in three dimensions from a position that moves in three dimensions as well. Notice also that the size of the object is not really diminishing as it 'accellerates' away. You would see something similar if you'd just passed it and actually getting closer, maybe with a vertical movement component that suggest moving away.

Apparantly the slowing of the turn rate creates the suggestion that the object accellerates suddenly, if the turn rate had been constant then the apparent acceleration, due to passing the object would have been somewhat smoother.

I've seen something similar once, couldn't believe our eyes, a big metallic colored cigar, albeit vertical oriented that time. So we approached it and passed it several times, which looks from the aircraft much the same as on that video, albeit that this cigar was only ascending slowly, with no horizontal movement. On the third pass much closer in, we could read the name of a well know tyre brand on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
jreelawg said:
I actually thought the same thing as you before, but I saw some crazy ####. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my one person observation seriously. Like you said the mind can play tricks. What I saw, was beyond what can be explained as something mundane, and in order to agree it was my mind playing tricks on me, I would have to assume I am completely losing my mind.

I put the I'm losing my mind hypothesis last, just after alien craft. The order I have in likeliness according to me

1: high tech hoax
2: high tech craft
3: high tech alien craft
4: losing my mind

FlexGunship said:
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?"

Why are those the only 4 options? What about "hallucination?" What about "illusion?" What about something even more complex? Or just misunderstanding? Perhaps a Chinese lantern in the wind? You have four options, none of which cover the most reasonable explanations. It's a false dichotomy. "If it wasn't an alien/gov't craft then it had to be <insert ridiculous thing>."

The point I was trying to make with my "long list post" is that the phenomenon being described are not the same at all. There is no consistent pattern. People simply declare by fiat that "this was not a bird." Or they make claims like "I'm a scientifically minded person." If you were a scientifically minded person, then you wouldn't start by dismissing the most reasonable options.

Furthermore, no one has put forth a theory with any weight. Make predictions! "If it's an alien craft, it will have 3 blue lights." At least then we know which ones to ignore! There's a real starting point. No one would ever accept "the long list" in any serious area of investigation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
Nuclear weapons, FOIA, general public, and "need to know"
    • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
2K
Cosford UFO incident - by Nick Pope
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
7K
Brazil Releases Classified UFO Data
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
42
Views
13K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
    • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT SHOWS BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
6K
The original UFO conspiracy nuts
    • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
8K
Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
119
Views
26K
Meet a Mentor: George Jones
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
5K
Robert Sheaffer - The Debunker's Dream
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top