Review of Leslie Kean's new book: UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record
Posted by Chris Rutkowski at 21:09, 07 Aug 2010A Kean Eye for UFOs
Book review:
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record
Harmony Books: NY. 2010. 335 pages.
The new book by Leslie Kean about UFOs is a problem. It’s quite unlike most other books about UFOs that have been published in recent memory, and it’s very good. It’s a problem because either every contributor to her edited collection of official testimonies and UFO case histories is a liar or completely misguided, or else she’s on to something important. Something about which scientists and the general public should pay attention.
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record is a collection of essays, some penned by Kean herself, about officially-documented and investigated UFO cases that were considered unexplained by government and military investigators. 
And just as the longish title infers, testimony by well-placed individuals who are and were in positions to know the facts and details about significant UFO incidents show that there is something truly perplexing going on in the skies overhead.
This isn’t a book about UFO crashes or Roswell (although it’s mentioned in passing on a few pages) nor is it about abductions by aliens and implants surgically removed from toes and noses. Nor is it about messages imparted by aliens to selected individuals or psychic vectoring of lights by self-declared Terran emissaries.
Kean’s book is about the facts concerning some significant UFO cases for which there is much official documentation. She details what really happened in specific and noteworthy UFO cases that in some instances made worldwide headlines and others were never made public. She cites official documents (not disputed documents) and interviews the military or government officials involved.
Kean’s capability as an investigative journalist is clearly evident throughout the book, and she has no interest in arm-waving exercises to dismiss witnesses’ observations simply on the basis that flying saucers cannot be real. At the same time, she effectively and deliberately distances herself from “undiscriminating UFO groups” and “extremists” who “market themselves as scholars or activists” and who “compound the public relations nightmare that UFOs already face within public discourse.”
In short, Kean’s work is one of the most important works in ufology published in decades. Her background in journalism and her passionate search for the truth has allowed her to seek out respected and staid individuals to tell the story behind what seems to be a most remarkable suppression of events and information.
She starts by introducing Major General Wilfrid de Brouwer, who was in charge of the military investigation of the Belgian UFO wave of 1989 and 1990. He effectively shoots down debunkers’ suggestions that the wave was caused by mass hysteria, helicopters or secret military maneuvers. Then, Captain Julio Miguel Guerra of the Portuguese Air Force describes a UFO which flew circles around his plane in 1982. A team of scientists and military investigators could not explain his experience. Later, Captain Roy Bowyer gives testament to the cigar-shaped UFOs which flew past his commercial aircraft over the English Channel in 2007, and the associated puzzling radar returns.
And so on. Retired military personnel and advisors come forward with statements and new testimony that UFO reports have been filed and investigated by various world governments, long after Project Blue Book declared UFO research as without any merit. Brazil, Britain, Chile, France and other countries have all been relatively transparent when it comes to release of UFO files, and yet, as Kean notes, the United States seems not to have any interest in the matter. Why?
Kean and her contributors all argue that the prevailing attitude of debunking UFO reports, accelerated during the Condon fiasco, should come to an end. They dare scientists who believe the “party line” that there are no credible and well-investigated unexplained UFO cases to wake up and take a real look at the collection of factual reports described in detail in Kean’s book.
If UFOs have no bearing on national security, Kean reasons, then why are military jets scrambled to chase seemingly solid radar returns? If there is no danger to aviation, why are pilots confounded by UFOs on routine flights across the country? Why does the FAA refer pilots to Peter Davenport’s UFO Center? Why wouldn’t the FAA prefer to thoroughly investigate their own pilots’ sightings? In one chapter, new evidence provided by the head of accident investigation within the FAA even suggests that the oft-noted 1986 JAL incident over Alaska was not as easily dismissed as some writers insist. And that “punch-hole cloud formation” over O’Hare? Kean wonders why the FAA didn’t investigate the incident in the name of transportation safety, and why won’t a single witness go on record about it?
Beyond documentation of official military and government UFO case investigation, Kean seeks the root cause of cynicism and debunking of UFOs among journalists and academia. Detailed statements by the French COMETA investigators, for example, all scientists in their own right, are diametrically opposite to those made by debunkers. Official conclusions by military and government investigators in several countries collectively call for more serious and objective studies of UFO reports, especially in the light of a lack of explanations for some peculiar cases.
The simple way to debunk Kean’s work is to challenge each and every contributor’s official statements, insisting they are all in error or liars. But this in itself raises an important problem, too. Why would so many well-placed and qualified individuals, most with outstanding service records, make such statements? Not fame, surely. Not for monetary gain. Then why?
Kean carefully crafts her work in a logical and compelling manner, without wide-eyed believers’ fanaticism but with a rational approach that challenges the reader and leads toward her thesis that it’s time for a paradigm shift: a new Kuhnian “scientific revolution.” She restates and improves upon the skeptics’ rallying cry that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” by making a sensible, subtle adjustment: “An extraordinary phenomenon demands an extraordinary investigation.”
Kean argues that, like many other countries around the globe, the United States should create a small official department to investigate UFO sightings in a timely manner and inform the public of details regarding their actions. This would not be simply a “public relations exercise” as Blue Book and been, but a way to reassure a frustrated public that its elected officials and taxpayer-funded military are actually doing their job at protecting American interests.
Kean presents the facts of many remarkable UFO cases, summarized in most instances by the witnesses themselves. Whereas some simply express their bewilderment at what they saw and the way in which official investigation transpired, because they are in positions to know the capabilities and limitations of terrestrial aircraft, they cannot contain themselves from concluding that they could have encountered an alien craft. It’s duly noted throughout the book that only a small fraction of UFO reports are unexplained, and a smaller fraction are thoroughly investigated and studied.
The fact that a real phenomenon is manifesting in terrestrial skies is the main premise of each section of the book. Based on Kean’s presentation, it is a logical and reasonable conclusion. And that’s a problem, because UFOs aren’t real, right?
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Chris Rutkowski's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
8 August 2010
18 weeks 39 min
This sounds like a real book. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Chris.
I have a concern: I think skeptics and academics will read it but not UFO enthusiasts. It doesn't sound like their cup of tea: too many facts.
That may sound cynical, but let me give you just one example.
Many believers fiercely and relentlessly insist a UFO landed in front of astronaut Gordon Cooper at Edwards Air Force Base, despite the fact Cooper always said in interviews he was told about it, that he never saw it first-hand, and made that clear in his autobiography 10 years ago. Apparently no one in UFOpolis has checked these sources because I keep seeing the false claim repeated on the internet without reference (even by the Paracast hosts and Grant Lawrence, who should know better).
But I hope I'm wrong and Kean gets invited onto all the better podcasts and Coast-to-Coast AM.
28 January 2011
1 year 15 weeks
Hi there - I am more than half way through Ms. Kean's eye-opening book, which is a serious study and not a frivolous account. For those of us who have seen a UFO, the book is an important confirmation that we are not crazy, do not have over-active imaginations, et al. I suggest you read it yourself. In addition, I suggest you watch the documentary, "I Know What I Saw" for further enlightenment. In fact I wish everyone interested in the health and welfare of our planet would read the book.
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
Sounds good.
Except for bringing these into one place is it going much further though? Definitely some trust might be built by solid investigation, and the factual overload will be no bad thing.
I remember reading The Day After Roswell as a teenager and being quite taken by it, but now it is not hard to find criticism.
I find it a little disingenuous when the 'It's rude to call so many people misguided' argument is used. Its tantamount to 'people can't be wrong', which is ridiculous. The use of 'misguided' is unfair in the case of witnesses as it goes a little far in demeaning them (of course with the implication in the language being reversed and demeaning the skeptic instead). I have seen things in the sky I cannot explain, my Grandma watched black dots in the sky for 20 minutes once. Am I misguided because I have not lent them to aliens?
There is now ample evidence that eye witness testimony in court cases is of low certainty. We do not describe the eye witnesses as misguided, just mistaken. Then again we should not be comparing them to some ideal of sensory and mental perfection, it does not exist.
I would like to see a book explain why eye witness testimony is not reliable, but in instances where an individual is seeing and trying to interpret the 'unknown' the reliability of the witness actually increases.
There are very compelling testimonies and group testimonies though, and the other evidences such as radar and photography adds much weight.
I find no-one who has any problem with the idea of unidentified phenomena in the skies, who would? I guess we all hide in the 'unidentified'.
Then again who would actually be that surprised if they were aliens? I'd want to know what they were up to and why and the answer that their answer might be so incomprehensible that it is not understandable (not just that it is hard, but that we understand it and it still makes no sense, it is irrational to us) freaks me out a little, but oh well.
I love the idea of “An extraordinary phenomenon demands an extraordinary investigation.” though, that's a good turn around.
7 August 2004
39 weeks 11 hours
I would like to see a book explain why eye witness testimony is not reliable...
Robert Anton Wilson describes an experiment in which two men rush into a psychology class, struggle and shout, and then one makes a stabbing motion and the other falls. The majority of students, whenever that has been tried, report a knife in the hand of the man who made the stabbing (knife-wielding) motion. In fact, the man used no knife. He used a banana.
Eyewitnesses often state that they "saw" something when in actuality, they "expected" to see something, so their brains create the something that they expected to see. These eyewitnesses will then report what they "saw" and will even pass lie detectors and testify under oath that they remembered seeing something that wasn't really there, or didn't really happen...
Dustin
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
Exactly. Now if 90% of people would report the knife being present we wouldn't necessarily describe them as 'misguided', 'mistaken' is a better word.
It is much harder for the UFO phenomena now since it has come to be the 'normalised' interpretation. When I saw a strange glow in the sky, even though it was tiny and far away, I asked 'I wonder if that is a UFO' as in 'I wonder if it's aliens'. This presumably creates an unfair environment in my mind for other phenomena - even though it could have been many things I never wondered them at the time, I just wondered if it was aliens.
Little wonder so many interpretations are false.
That doesn't reflect on all the experiences though, but it surely makes us ask questions of any eye witness(s) and the point about that is that if a degree of uncertainty exists in them all individually then it is fair game across the board.
However, there still must have been something happening to interpret so we can all agree that people are seeing 'things' in the sky, even if pointing out that eye witness accounts of the details are unreliable to a standard above generality (and whats with the apparent perception hierarchy implied with janitors>teachers>doctors>army generals anyway? Why is it supposed to get better with occupation or earnings?; bare in mind that a perception hierarchy is being implied, not just a trustability hierarchy - don't trust the criminals if they see UFO's!).
>> To those people who have really delved into this, what do people actually want done about these things if they are aliens? After government honesty (what if it is government dishonesty that is buying us time before an invasion?) that is.
12 April 2007
2 hours 5 min
You raise valid points, and I equally agree that we shouldn't immediately jump into conclusions about the origin or nature of these things.
However, the fact that highly qualified military or civilian personnel keep reporting these objects —and not all reports are of vague distant lights that could be anything, but sometimes they see what appears to be structured crafts made of something that reflects light.
Sometimes the UFOs get so close that they can discern interesting details about these objects.
Hmmm. Good question; I suppose people think that government validation is the final goal of Ufology, since having that might alter every single aspect of our society as we know it.
Personally, what I would want done is find out a)where do they come from; and b)what do they want?
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
However, the fact that highly qualified military or civilian personnel keep reporting these objects —and not all reports are of vague distant lights that could be anything, but sometimes they see what appears to be structured crafts made of something that reflects light.
It certainly opens the mind to the possibility.
Personally I find it a little strange that the sky isn't full of them. Hopefully that means that if they are aware of us they are peaceful.
The only thing I remind myself of is the enormity of time. We have to remind ourselves just how long a million years is, never mind 200 million. It is entirely possible for space faring empires to pop up and disappear spaced out across time so they don't really contact each other. There may have been millions of them in our galaxy, but perhaps only a few at a time. Then if it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light even taking a look around your own galaxy is going to be a very big affair.
If we were to become extinct and another sentient species evolve in 20 million years there would be nothing much left for them discover. Fossil humans no doubt, but no large scale record except perhaps geological. Geologists understand the processes that create oil (yes, maybe a very small percentage comes from reactions in igneous rocks, but not the large scale deposits) so if we started oil exploration and just didn't find any we would need to explain why. Previous extraction of minerals and hydrocarbons will still be recorded in 20 million years, even 100 million I would say. It is a very solid way of checking for the existence of previously globally developed sentient species here on Earth (unless they never extracted them of course).
Presumably we will see the same pattern in space. It will be interesting if we find geologically depleted regions on other planets. I guess they are going to be far more common than alien races.
But then again, ask the question: What do you do if you evolve on a planet that has been previously depleted? How does that affect development and growth? We have been very lucky with the Earth.
I suppose people think that government validation is the final goal of Ufology, since having that might alter every single aspect of our society as we know it.
Perhaps, though it seems like a bit of our utopian dreams might be creeping in. Provision by aliens might alter things significantly, but on the day aliens arrive (so long as they don't attack) i'm willing to bet everybody goes 'Holy Shit, look at that' and then goes off to work. The centre of peoples lives are their family and children, aliens are still subordinate to that. Trust me, I spend some time trying to tell people how amazing life is in all its beauty and complexity and many people still prefer day time telly. For a lot of people I think aliens would either be something to be scared of, or just something else going on in the world. Especially since most people do think they are out there somewhere, just preferably not flying over our heads right now.
Consider that there are already many completely mind boggling and eye opening facts about life and the Earth that completely reshape the way you think about life and our place here, but most people don't think they are important. They are periphery to the actual day to day goings on and 'not something I need to know'.
Not that I see that as a problem, I think it probably drives the human race to function on a day to day basis.
22 November 2004
4 weeks 1 day
Probably the aliens' center of life is quite different from ours. If they are here, they are for the most part ignoring us. That is probably because we are not very interesting. The usual reason given at this point, in this line of argument, is that we are so far beneath them, we don't count as sentient beings. Or that we are a big wild game reserve, only visited by the odd warden or poacher.
There may be more of a lateral difference. Like the left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
Or maybe the aliens are not intelligent beings. Maybe they are like insects, with highly complex behaviour, but with no sign of mind.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
2 hours 5 min
Oh, yes. I've been finding that argument a lot lately. Seems to be the flavor of the month :-P
But don't you see you're making the mistake of assuming these are displays of an extraterrestrial origin? I don't know where the hell these things come from. NOBODY DOES.
Not necessarily:
You go to work because you gotta pay taxes, right?
Q: And why do I have to pay taxes?
A: Because the government needs money.
Q: And why does the government need money?
A: Because the government spends it in the military, so they can keep you safe.
Um... but wait a minute: there are those weird things in the sky that continually violate restricted airspace —even airspace of the most secret or sensitive military installations in the planet, like nuclear missile silos— They go there and have the capacity to disrupt the launching mechanisms of the most devastating warfare technology known to man —all this disclosed by the very men that were charged with operating those weapons— and yet you, government, seem completely incapable of stopping them or keeping them away, no matter how much of my money you spend.
So, remind me: why the hell I'm supposed to pay taxes again? ;)
You see, my friend, UFOs have always represented a threat to established institutions of power. They are a fundamental disruption of the Status Quo.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
Oh, yes. I've been finding that argument a lot lately. Seems to be the flavor of the month :-P
I haven't been reading it somewhere, honest. The background in geology and palaeontology makes the time-scale clear as well as the frequency of speciation and evolution. Obviously it is hard to say how likely sentience like us is, but it seems the Earth may have only done it once so far, though evidence of ones before half a billion years might be sparse, we might see it - as amazing as it sounds. The Kaapvaal craton (a craton is a part of the crust that has not been recycled by plate tectonics; they are rare but exist) has a section rich in gold that formed >3.6 billion years ago. The gold is still there, untouched. No aliens, or terrestrial species, have ever mined it. These occur, with varying ages, across the world, to my knowledge none have been exploited.
So, remind me: why the hell I'm supposed to pay taxes again? ;)
UK total government revenue is £881 billion, military expenditure in 2010 is £40 billion, so if we stopped all military expenditure I could have a tax cut of 4.5% (a bit less considering economic damage resulting from decreased government spending). I think we pay our tax's more for the teachers, nurses, doctors, firemen, police, local and national government, foreign aid, European grants, national infrastructure, disability allowances, all other benefits such as unemployment benefits, child tax credits, working tax credits, pathology departments, MRI machines, university grants, criminal justice system, legal aid, free nursery care for above 2 year old's, free primary, secondary and collage education, and hopefully one day free university education again. It is no wonder that the military is such a small percentage.
I also suspect that defenceless-ness in one sphere (the aliens) would not promote disarmament in other spheres. An arms race is more likely, as ineffectual as it might be.
12 April 2007
2 hours 5 min
On one of the Ancient Aliens programs, it was mentioned the existence of a gold mine somewhere in South Africa, that (apparently) was being mined 150,000 years ago. I find that as interesting —yet inconclusive— evidence.
Then again, here I am making the *same* mistake most skeptics do: anthropomorphizing aliens and their intentions for being here. Sure they might want to exploit natural resources that we deem important too. But then again, they might be interested in stuff we might deem worthless. A fellow named Wilhelm Reich had a very odd theory that aliens came to Earth to exploit orgone, for example.
Yet sometimes I suspect they come here to exploit a different —and possibly much more valuable— source of energy:
"An elderly woman went to her local doctor’s office and asked to speak with her doctor. When the receptionist asked why she was there, she replied, “I’d like to have some birth control pills.”
Taken back, the doctor thought for a minute and then said, “Excuse me, Mrs. Glenwood, but you’re 80 years old. What would you possibly need birth control pills for?”
The woman replied, “They help me sleep better.”
The doctor considered this for a second, and continued… “How in the world do birth control pills help you sleep?”
The woman said, “I put them in my granddaughter’s orange juice, and I sleep better at night.”"
That laugh you just had might just be more powerful and valuable to our pesky visitors than all the gold and uranium in the world :)
OK: teachers and doctors for instance. Now, don't you think a few people might demand the entire history and science curriculum to be reviewed and updated in light of the official recognition of non-human life in this planet —settle down, Enigmni! ;)—?
And suppose your granny is sick with a terminal illness. Would you put up with exorbitant hospital bills when those guys at the saucer might have a better shot actually curing her?
These are all speculative scenarios, of course. But once again, I'm of the idea that UFOs represent a major disruption to the status quo of social institutions. That's part of their huge appeal among some of us, I guess ^_^
Incidentally, Richard Dolan, who wrote the seminal work "UFOs and the National Security State" —a book that is a must-read for people who yet doubt that governments are not worried about UFOs, or that they are unable to keep big secrets for a large amount of time— is said to be working on a more speculative book, trying to answer the question of what exactly could happen when (or if, take your pick) governments finally recognized the UFO reality; I'm sure it will be a great read.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
I really have to go to sleep so I can't write much.
There's a difference of degree in the mining we might be talking about. Surface mining on a small scale I could buy even 100,000 years ago. If one tribe were to enslave another then some larger scale mining might be achievable. I am referring to planetary scale mining - soon no deposit is safe.
I agree that if aliens came and said we will provide for all your needs then we wouldn't need to be taxed so much. We are straight into V territory there though.
Now, don't you think a few people might demand the entire history and science curriculum to be reviewed and updated in light of the official recognition of non-human life in this planet
I would hope so. However scientists and historians do that, teachers just teach what they are told to. You seem to be saying that the arrival of aliens would undermine our own sense of the importance of our own understanding. This may well be true in many senses, but we could still teach most subjects unaffected (possibly). I will have to think about that. My gut instinct is that it would not change things too much, definitely below college or school level alien technology and understanding might be too much (we already water things down a great deal). Perhaps at degree level it might make things much more difficult.
I suspect the adjustment period would be allowed to account for this though, so that curriculum were adapted slowly (they already progress slower than discovery). I shall ponder it.
12 April 2007
2 hours 5 min
And after you get your much-deserved 40 winks, be sure to check that hilarious chart someone made that explains how someone should act if you meet aliens.
And after you had your laugh, ponder some more about the possibility that such a thing might have occurred in the past, and could explain some things in our past —pharaonic lineages, stuff like that ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
I have had my winks.
Everything is speculation of course, so everything has an alternative possibility. I wonder if it is possible to have a serious discussion, rather than just pointing out opposing possibilities, which is quite easy really.
With the likes of alien interference, whether it be in Egypt or tech advancement following Roswell, I can't really think of a test other than some sort of fair assessment of whether discoveries could have been made on our own.
The UFO as alien or advanced being hypothesis (and lets face it, it seems a natural guess if they have spaceships even if there are also other possibilities - its not going to be excluded is all I mean) suffers from all this jumping. It feels at too early a stage to me. One second we look at small incremental increases in technology in our past, small enough so that it is debatable and not clearly evidential, and the next they are so advanced that we might not even notice them at all. One second it's nuclear weapons vs sponges and the next its velcro, night vision, shape memory alloys, micro-circuitry, lasers etc all coming from the crashed Roswell ship.
Obviously this isn't a problem during hypothesising, but the way it reflects in any discussion is as a freedom to insert whatever is needed at a particular time (compare that the the freedom I get when discussing my own field and hopefully you'll see the difference). We are supposed to have all this evidence that is supposed to be becoming strong enough to persuade skeptics - what does it indicate? Surely it acts as a 'possibility reducing' dataset, just like any other set of evidences. To argue outside of it is heading into philosophy really, not UFOlogy - I would have thought anyway.
Enough of that though, back to the fun stuff.
What do you think of pharaonic lineages?
12 April 2007
2 hours 5 min
That's a fair assessment. Even with such OOP inventions like the Antikythera mechanism, you'd probably never be 100% certain that it was the direct result of alien intervention. Also, there's the problem that you never really pay attention to those things until you yourself are advanced enough to grasp the technological implications —e.g. the so-called Egyptian glider— and that inevitably makes you biased toward it —you 'see' a plane because that's what it resembles to your modern mind.
Now, regarding how much we could hypothetically learn about a crashed alien vessel, there's a guy named Robert Bragalia who has been conducting a truly interesting investigation regarding the possible involvement of the Battelle institute in the analysis of the legendary "memory metal" of the Roswell crash —according to the story (or legend if you will) the paper-thin pieces of metal found at the crash site had the amazing peculiarity of instantly returning to their original shape after being folded with the hand.
According to Bragalia, out of this investigation US Naval laboratories were able to invent Nitinol —an alloy made out of Titanium-Nickel; please take note that Bragalia is *not* saying Nitinol was the actual Roswell metal, but that in his opinion, it was the closest thing to it human scientist could come up with —it's important to understand that Bragalia is a defender of the ETH, so to him the Roswell crash could not be anything but an extraterrestrial disc; and this obviously is debatable.
I don't agree with Bragalia on many things, but I give him credit for opening this interesting line of investigation.
You know, I admit I haven't studied a whole lot about it. I mentioned it because I found funny how the chart concluded that, even if you'd get killed by fanatics after establishing first contact with aliens, you'd have a pretty good shot at having a long descendance; who might be held in the highest regard by the rest of the populace.
To me, it was inevitable to find some correlation with the myth of Osiris —killed by his brother Seth and resurrected by his sister/wife Osiris— and the pharaonic lineage. Obviously, I do this only as a thought experiment.
But as a thought experiment, it's also interesting to consider the fact that, even if first contact (the way the chart intends it) would be established today, what could you do to prevent future factions or historians to distort or censor the truth in order to conceal what really happened in the distant future?
It's all rather frustrating, to tell the truth. But that's the fun part of it ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
2 weeks 4 days
I have to agree with you.
Its very hard to say what it is reasonable for ancient people to have come up with. The trouble is that artefacts can be a little like fossils. They just appear without the full context and history of their evolution. Of course with fossils the overall trend spatially and temporally is perfectly obvious, which is all that is needed for the particular strand of argument, but when an artefact pops up how do we rule out the possibility of a lifetimes work (or more) by a dedicated set of individuals working under conditions or institutions lost in the depths of time, such as a King hiring (or otherwise) brilliant men and keeping them down in his castle etc. What we know is that there was no difference intellectually between ancient mankind and us, other than social and cultural institutions and the knowledge passed down. Perhaps a line can be drawn between discoveries possible using trial and error and ones that fundamentally depend on an understanding of base principles. For example there appears to me to be a line drawn by a lack of global communications and investigation that resulted in incorrect geological interpretations. To piece together the mysteries of geology you have to travel over most of the planet. You simply lack the information and can only go so far based on local data - a line is drawn and it can be used to see if information is coming from elsewhere.
Also, there's the problem that you never really pay attention to those things until you yourself are advanced enough to grasp the technological implications
While I can see exceptions to the rule this is a powerful argument. I especially like the possibility that contact with aliens might be what propels individuals, and ultimately their families, into power.
As ever, cheers for the thoughts.
11 September 2010
1 year 35 weeks
The UFO Debate: Oberg vs. Kean
What You Should Know about James Oberg’s Track Record
By Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com
UFO “skeptic” James Oberg is currently challenging the validity of the material found in journalist Leslie Kean’s excellent new book, “UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record.” Oberg is a founding member of a rather interesting organization, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) now renamed the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
Actually, CSI is a skeptical organization in name only when it comes to the subject of UFOs. For the real story, including the very interesting and generally-unpublicized past government affiliations of some of it's key members, including James Oberg, go to my website www.ufohastings.com and read my article “Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers.”
My own research on UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites—as confirmed by declassified U.S. government documents and ex-military eyewitness testimony—will be presented at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on September 27, 2010. At that press conference, seven ex-USAF personnel will divulge their knowledge of UFO incursions at ICBM sites and nuclear weapons depots during the Cold War era.
So, what does this have to do with Oberg and his group CSI? Well, the organization's magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, has been edited since the early 1980s by Kendrick Frazier, whose profession is listed as “Science Writer” in the publisher's statement. Not mentioned (even in Frazier's own online bio) is the fact that he worked for 20-plus years as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia Labs, a leading U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratory.
Consequently, here is the situation: Hundreds of declassified documents clearly establish a link between UFOs and nukes, a fact confirmed by over 120 ex-military personnel interviewed by myself. And who is responsible for the content of the leading debunking magazine—whose pages routinely feature articles discrediting UFOs and those who report them? Why, a PR guy who worked for two decades for the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program!
Hmmmmm…
Also not mentioned in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, but discussed in my article (referenced above) is the fact that James Oberg, a leading UFO debunker at CSI, was a USAF Security Officer for nukes-related information who once privately chastised another former USAF officer, Dr. Bob Jacobs, for publishing what turned out to be Top Secret information about the nukes-related Big Sur UFO case. Fortunately, Dr. Jacobs later published the key portions of Oberg's letter. All of the documented details relating to this are available at my website.
So, when someone claims that Oberg is a true UFO “skeptic” or that his baby, CSI/CSICOP, is an objective, scientifically-oriented group that has no ax to grind when it challenges those who release sensitive UFO-related information—including the highly-credible individuals presented in Leslie Kean's new book—please send them to my website to learn the facts.
BTW, Kean’s book, “UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record” contains the testimony of retired USAF Col. Charles Halt, who states that a UFO reportedly directed beams of light down into the nuclear weapons depot at the RAF Bentwaters airbase in England in December 1980. The book is currently #30 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Bestseller List. Let’s hope that it reaches #1 given that it should be read by everyone, skeptic and proponent alike.
18 September 2007
12 hours 30 min
One of the most enlightening things a person can do nowadays is skywatch even in the daytime. In fact, especially during daylight. Since becoming a chentrail "observer" I have been amazed at what there is to see up there if you just stop and stare for awhile. The aerosol operations are not hard to find, and they are one of the best theaters out there. Just keep an eye on the sky. I have seen the damnedest things going on during aerosol operations. They are going on nearly everywhere all the time though there will be hiatuses. They tend to come in clusters of consecutive "spray days," so if you catch an operation one day then the odds of the operations happening on the following day are high. The next time you see a plethora of fat "contrails" crisscrossing your sky stop and watch for awhile. Watch especially the planes. Pick one out and keep your eye on it. I guarantee you will see things that blow your mind. It is amazing how little attention people pay to the sky anymore. Try it. It can also be very relaxing. If you can take your mind off the fact that they are laying barium and aluminum powder streaks up there the mediative aspects alone are worth indulging in. It can be very soothing to watch all the skywriting.
13 May 2004
24 weeks 5 days
I've read this book (got it for Christmas).
It's brilliant, and the review is an extremely accurate summary of its content. I could hardly put it down.
Would STRONGLY recommend it to anyone on this board. But, as somebody has already pointed out, I doubt it will be read by the UFO "nuts" (and probably dismissed as fabrication by the 'head-in-the-sand' sceptics).
Whatever - their loss. EVERYONE should read it.
pip pip
yer ol' pal,
Xibalba
28 November 2010
7 hours 31 min
If UFO's where a crime, then their is enough evidence in any one of the many cases reported in this book, with expert testimony by the most reliable and trustworthy people, for the police to start an investigation immediately.
This observation alone is sufficient reason for any open minded individual to realise that there is a "cover up."
So why do so many supposedly clear thinking individuals try to make out that there is no case to answer.
If only Psychologists where not all as crazy as the people denying UFO's then there would have been an answer to this irrational behavior years ago.
georgehants
14 July 2008
9 hours 9 min
Woo hoo! Exactamundo!
But now go to the courtroom where that oh-so-obvious evidence is being presented in the case. On one side, you have the prosecution presenting said evidence. But on the other side, the defense denies every word of it, coming up with rationals and excuses to sway the minds of the people in the jury box.
It's strictly adversarial. Right and wrong, truth and lie, guilt or innocence really don't play that big of a role because there is a very defined job being performed regardless of any of that.
So, now when you read people like Shermer or any of the other high profile, industrial strength skeptics and bunk-shovelers, you have to wonder whether their skepticism is honest or merely the task of a paid position... just a job to do.
Bang Bang Bang, and down you go,
It's just a job I do...
Good post!
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."