Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
SO is Leslie Kean muddying the waters? In the introduction to her book, she defines UFO, and it's more in tune with my definition that yours.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Leslie Kean and Charles Halt
- Thread starter wwkirk
- Start date
Free episodes:
SO is Leslie Kean muddying the waters? In the introduction to her book, she defines UFO, and it's more in tune with my definition that yours.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Kean's involvement in ufology is a double edged sword. We've discussed this in some detail already:
- Leslie Kean and Charles Halt | The Paracast Community Forums
- Leslie Kean and Charles Halt | The Paracast Community Forums
Again, like Chris says, the message is more important than who delivers it. Being a ufology celebrity doesn't automatically make one correct. Appealing to authority figures for material doesn't necessarily make the material accurate. What does count is evidence and sound logic for one's statements. In Ms. Kean's Introduction she doesn't define the word UFO, she defines the word UAP, a term created by NARCAP to differentiate between the term UFO and what NARCAP wanted their studies to focus on. What's more, the NARCAP definition is almost a word for word adoption of Hynek's definition for UFO. While Kean acknowledges that UAPs are a separate class of phenomena and mentions the "baggage" that is deemed to accompany the usage of the word UFO, she goes on to willfully ignore the distinction and uses both terms synonymously, thereby dragging all the baggage along with the new word; that baggage being the general presumption that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft. This is a bit ironic given how impressed she was with the COMETA report.
So you see, Kean still has a number of issues to deal with, and yes the way she handles them does muddy the waters. It's neither a responsible nor logical approach. Apart from this unresolved issue ( which she admits still plagues her ), Kean's work is some of the best to come out since Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good. If there were a way to convince Ms. Kean that she shouldn't be the least bit ashamed or driven out of fear to use the most accurate language, I would. But let's face it, she's a ufology celebrity and the last thing her PR campaign needs is the media "giggle factor" ... it's bad for book sales. But I don't have that conflict of interest. I have no need to be an apologist ufologist. I can simply look at the evidence and the logic and make an argument based on critical thinking. If you ( or anyone else ) does the same by building an even better case, I'll change my stance. Until then, there is insufficient reason to do so.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Actually she says, "In the context of this book, the terms UFO and UAP mean essentially the same thing and will be used interchangeably."
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
That was covered when I said ( key section in bold below ):
From NARCAP:
There is a movement within NARCAP, influenced heavily by Nick Pope to dissociate UAPs from UFOs because of the connotation that the word UFO carries with it the presumption of alien visitation, most probably extraterrestrial. This has an extremely divisive effect on the overall field. Consider the following quote:
Apart from the divisiveness, why is Nick Pope so sure that UFOs aren't ET and should therefore be excluded from the area of study? All this movement is doing is creating schizophrenia within NARCAP, one of the most promising organizations in the Modern Era ( thanks Nick ). Let's hope NARCAP comes to it's senses before alienating all us lowly self-taught ufologists.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
I agree that Kean is totally downplaying what many of us like to talk about, namely the possibility that ET (or something similar exotic or paranormal, or both) is interacting with us on Earth.
That really doesn't bother me one bit. She basically admits she's being political(-ly correct), and if you listen closely, she admits she's as fascinated with the idea as the rest of us. But the deal is that UFOs may literally be a hazard to air traffic, and the political leverage comes with documenting that fact. Not by yappin' about secret governments and aliens etc. Once the fact of it is documented to the point where it is considered something not taboo, then the fun starts.. That's the strategy, and I happen to think it's sound. It's realistic, and pragmatic. It may go nowhere, but Kean sure doesn't sound downtrodden, yet.
Great interview with her as always, she's got her eyes on the ball, and she makes sense, in a normal-world sense. Charles Halt was surprisingly into the E.T. side of things, I have this feeling he was more cautious in older interviews I've seen or heard?
That really doesn't bother me one bit. She basically admits she's being political(-ly correct), and if you listen closely, she admits she's as fascinated with the idea as the rest of us. But the deal is that UFOs may literally be a hazard to air traffic, and the political leverage comes with documenting that fact. Not by yappin' about secret governments and aliens etc. Once the fact of it is documented to the point where it is considered something not taboo, then the fun starts.. That's the strategy, and I happen to think it's sound. It's realistic, and pragmatic. It may go nowhere, but Kean sure doesn't sound downtrodden, yet.
Great interview with her as always, she's got her eyes on the ball, and she makes sense, in a normal-world sense. Charles Halt was surprisingly into the E.T. side of things, I have this feeling he was more cautious in older interviews I've seen or heard?
Jimi, if only Steven Basset could see things the way we do, in regards to trying to garner official interest in a serious side to the UFO mystery. I cannot believe that the man cannot understand how certain people and views are totally detrimental to his stated aims. It honestly is enough for me to think he is actually working against Ufology as a field. He sure seems to do plenty to harm serious discussion on the topic.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Sure, but let's not sidestep the critical issue. I'm sure you can appreciate that those of who have been in ufology for a long time value its history and respect those ufologists in the past who have made genuine and constructive contributions to the field. We've spent decades trying to ascertain the truth regarding alien visitation, and this endeavor is not something to be ridiculed or abandoned. In fact, it is the very heart of the subject matter. It is what we all want to know, and therefore the NARCAP strategy amounts to ripping the heart out of ufology, throwing it in the trash, and relegating anyone who pursues that line of inquiry to tin foil hat wearing UFO nuts or charlatans. They are essentially saying the same thing as CSI ( CSICOP ) or the JREF. It's an extremely divisive move designed to prop up their own image at the expense of the field as a whole, and if they're successful, responsible ufologists everywhere will become the equivalent of collateral damage. Responsible ufologists should appeal to them to reconsider their strategy regardless of whether or not it means a minor drop in their book or ticket sales.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
With the elusiveness of the phenomena, ufo history has shown that we perhaps won't get anywhere until public awareness and government assistance is a reality. So that's Kean's working hypothesis. And at least she won't 'alienate' scientists and politicians in the process, as Goggs says, unlike Greer or Bassett or someone like that, that's something you can't underestimate.
Remember though, you are free to go about it your own way, and I wouldn't worry about her. Also, I think one should be careful to pledge allegiance to anything in this field, she's being cautious.
Remember though, you are free to go about it your own way, and I wouldn't worry about her. Also, I think one should be careful to pledge allegiance to anything in this field, she's being cautious.
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
Randal, I gotta say man, I thoroughly disagree with your attack on Kean throughout this entire thread. At first I was thinking you were confusing her with Linda Moulton Howe (that money-grubbing snitch), but seriously you're attacks against her, I believe, are uncalled for. You attack her for being the 'celebrity' and going on every show possible to promote her message, including public and popular news and talk show programs, as if it's a bad thing for her to do so. However, every time I've seen Kean on a program, even on Colbert (my favorite), her message has been far more about the topic and less about her product. Rarely, if ever, have I heard her drive her book down an audiences throat, and consistently her words have driven toward the topic and desired research of UFO's, and less about her own self-image. Believe me when I say I've seen people in the paranormal field go down the celebrity sell-out road (Jason and Grant anyone?) but your perception of Leslie Kean trailing down this path is unfair and unfounded.
Additionally, if you had the chance to promote the field within a public, national media forum, wouldn't you? Kean is being sought after in those forums. She's not relegated to just doing programs like The Paracast, or Coast to Coast, or TSWSNBN'ed. Not that these programs are bad, per-se but they cater to a specific, limited audience. Whenever your topic and influence extend beyond a specific audience and your success or, yes, popularity, allow you to take your message beyond that audience, you take it. Kean is leveraging the fact that she's done exemplary work in her book and it has called attention to people outside this little sub-culture we call UFOlogy. You would do the same if given the opportunity. Any one of us would. She dares to tread outside the safe waters of paranormal programming where (present program excluded) most hosts "play nice" and go along with whatever you're selling. Instead Kean has the opportunities to take her work above-and-beyond, into the public image. I commend her for that.
Secondly, you criticize her for remaining on the fence about sourcing of UFO's. Yes, this is frustrating, believe me I'd like to know her personal opinion about the phenomenon as much as the next guy, but I whole heartedly understand why she remains pointedly Swiss on the topic. I point to Stanton Friedman who's thrown in his towel with one level of sourcing for UFOs and, as a result, has lost a LOT of credibility for doing so. Kean emphasizes on the really important aspects; the fact that UFO's are real, a threat to national security, and a danger to aviation both public and military. She understands that you have to establish that baseline awareness on a governmental and public level before trying to postulate and speculate about what UFO's are and where they come from. Until she gets the people she's targeting to that point, I seriously doubt she's going to go on the record, anywhere, about what her personal beliefs are. It would be a form of professional suicide for her to do so.
Lastly you bicker about the nuances of the term "UFO" and site historical references for your point, but the grand majority of those references come from within the field of UFO research itself. It reminds me of the State Farm commercial where the girl and guy are talking on the street and the guy asks the girl where she heard that State Farm didn't have any smartphone apps? [Paraphrasing here... see below for the actual video] Girl - "Yeah, and they can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true." Guy - "Really? Where'd you hear that?" Girl (and guy) - "The Internet." There is a philosophical law which states that you never use a source to confirm the validity of that same source. Can any one say 'The Bible?'...how do we know the Bible is the word of God? Because it says so in the Bible. Red Flag!
The same applies to the term "UFO". What does it mean? How should it be used? Most of the answers to those questions are given within the field of UFO research which, in my opinion, casts serious suspicion on those answers. I agree on one of your points; that the term UFO and the phrase Unidentified Flying Object are two distinct linguistic items, now. Culturally they offer subtle differences in meaning but again, most of those differences are defined within the field of UFO research. Outsider society, as in outside UFO research, does associate a laugh factor element to the term "UFO", like it or not. Kean understands this and struggles to avoid this as best she can, and I don't think she owes an apology to yourself or anybody else within the field of UFO research for her choices regarding the term. As any good investigative reporter is want to do, she analyses her audience and potential audience, both within and without the UFO research field, as best she can. She weighs the clear stigma behind the term UFO with it's marketed recognition.
Okay, I got long-winded on this one, I know, but I think you know what I'm saying here, Ufology. When I hear your complaints against Leslie Kean all I really hear is sour grapes. Considering the low-quality researcher in this field (using the terms broadly), I think Kean is one of the top researchers, if not the top researcher in this field for what she does.
My four cents.
J.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
First off, you're putting words in my mouth to justify your position. The only person(s) I've associated Kean with so far on this issue is Nick Pope and NARCAP, and I'm trying to make a serious point. So let's try to stick to the facts before we derail ourselves again. Regarding facts, there's no denying Kean is a UFO celebrity. You say that you saw her yourself on a nationally broadcast talk show. She's got a best selling book translated now into eight languages. She's been on countless TV, radio shows and podcasts and attends symposiums and so on. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's how she's choosing to wield that power I'm having the problem with. On one hand she's been a source of hope and inspiration for ufology, and on the other lies a divisive anti-ufology agenda. Exposing this is obviously not going to be easy with you, but let me ask you a few questions:
Do you honestly believe that she's got no PR strategy and does it all herself just for the cause? Do you honestly believe that both she and the people on her team aren't driven by sales when she's the #1 ufology celebrity out there? Do you honestly believe that her appearances aren't a large factor in driving sales? Do you honestly not recognize that the so-called "giggle factor" is primarily a media problem that she herself recognizes? Do you really think she and her promoters can't put two and two together and see how the giggle factor could significantly affect sales? Please Sand, for nonexistent God's sake, with all that in play here, how can you possibly claim that what I'm saying is unfounded? Like I started out saying, I want to believe in Ms. Kean, but let's look at the evidence. Does she or doesn't she have a publicity agent ...
Do I now have to go on and list all the appearances and a tally of her earnings from sales before you'll accept that compared to Ms. Kean people like Linda Howe are small potatoes? Do I have to quote from her interview the remarks she made about ufology that support my position? Just go to the Paracast archives and download it. She's subtle, but when you recognize it, it gets harder and harder to ignore it.. Do you doubt that Kean and NARCAP ( the people who created the term UAP ) have a strategy to distance themselves from ufology, the core of which is to determine the truth regarding alien visitation?
Sure I would, but instead of relegating my peers to the status of tin foil hat wearing fantasy prone UFO nuts, I'd be supporting ufology as a serious field of study. Kean is doing no such thing. On one hand she's using ufology to boost her campaign, and on the other she's trashing it as a legitimate field of study.
Unfortunately she's not "pointedly Swiss" at all. In fact she's patently anti-Swiss while pretending to play the part. She's part of a conscious and deliberate effort to relegate ufology to the realm of charlatans and UFO nuts by making it known in no uncertain terms that she's not dealing with the topic of alien visitation. Face it, if she's going to throw alien visitation out the window, then she might as well join CSI ( formerly CSICOP ) or the JREF. It's exactly the same stance that they have.
I respect Stanton Friedman for taking the hits and telling it the way he honestly believes it to be. I've even adopted his phrase and take no shame in being a non-apologist ufologist. He's got a lot more experience than Kean and is a genuine nuclear physicist and accomplished ufologist. Just who does Kean think she is relegate people like Friedman to the woo crowd? I may not agree with everything Friedman says, but he doesn't deserve that, and yet that's exactly what Kean and NARCAP are doing with their anti-ufology rhetoric. It's nothing short of marginalizing the field for their own personal gain.
Keep looking and you'll start to see the behind the curtain. It's not immediately obvious because you're only looking at the work Kean and NARCAP do that deserves praise ( and they do deserve praise for their work ). That's why I say what they're doing is a double edged sword. That's why I say I want to believe in Ms. Kean. If it weren't for all adopting Pope's anti-ufology strategy, I'd be one of Kean's biggest fans. Coming to realize the flip side of their campaign almost made me barf all over my copy of UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. This is serious stuff that threatens serious ufology to its core. We're not all the way she's portraying us. It's blatant stereotyping.
The government and the people already know what we're talking about when we talk about UFOs. The first thing that comes to mind is aliens, usually extraterrestrials in some sort of craft, typically a flying saucer. It's not some shocking news that we still need acclimatizing to. So this awareness you say needs to happen doesn't need to happen at all. The UAP spin is primarily to minimize the so-called "giggle factor" in the media and help to secure funding.
My concern over understanding what UFOs and Ufology are does not constitute "bickering". Bickering implies a bad tempered argument about a trivial matter. In contrast, I'm presenting my views on an issue that is of core importance to what this forum focusses on, and I'm doing so with clarity backed by independent examples. In the article I wrote on what UFOs are, I cite more than the official definitions. I describe how they evolved and I include a mention of the common usage all the way to the present day taking into account books, dictionaries, videos, and the Internet. The evidence is overwhelming on all sides of the equation ( official and popular ) that the word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft, typically a flying saucer, usually presumed to be extraterrestrial. Apart from all that Sand, it's just blatantly obvious ... it's common knowledge. Only those who want to hedge themselves against the "giggle factor" or have some anti-ufology agenda qualify their statements about UFOs as merely representing some unidentified whatever.
The giggle factor is primarily media induced and a result of post Robertson Panel politics. When we're not dealing with those types of media people, most folks ( apart from the obnoxious skeptics ) tend to discuss the topic quite seriously. I know because I've talked to literally hundreds of people in an impromptu fashion outside the setting of UFO conferences and events.
Oh I agree. Ms. Kean and her publicists definitely understand the media giggle factor, and wanting to avoid it isn't the problem. It's how they're going about it that's the problem. We've already been through that above. I also don't claim Kean or NARCAP owes me an apology. Although I could understand a couple of other people wanting one. But that's their call. What I do claim and make no bones about, is that painting all ufology with the same dark brush is extremely divisive and self-serving ... despite the otherwise high quality of her work.
Sour grapes? Let's just examine that phrase. Have you ever bitten into one? If Kean's book is the delicious juicy sweet grape sitting before me right now on my desk, then finding out that embedded in her major promotional campaign, is a strategy to marginalize ufology, is certainly sufficient reason to cringe. And let's be clear. When you say, "Kean is one of the top researchers, if not the top researcher in this field." just remember Kean has made it clear in no uncertain terms that she doesn't consider herself to be part of "this field" we call ufology. In fact, she and NARCAP are sympathetic to the strategy of distancing themselves from ufology as much as possible while at the same time sucking whatever they can out of it for themselves at our expense. Also, most of what she's put into her book isn't entirely new. This may sound harsh but the evidence is right in front of you. So please let's not get into a non-productive argument with hand waving and denials. If you want to discuss this further then please stick to the examples and the points instead of staring in with innuendos and other unproductive counterpoint. On that note, I'll leave you with Nick Popes recommendation as found on the NARCAP site in Haines' paper:
Again, think about what the above is really saying. What do you think he means by, "small core of legitimate atmospheric phenomena that deserve to be studied"? Obviously it's not to suggest that the core might be some sort of alien craft because he goes on to say that the perception of the phenomenon as alien visitation will be hard to change. This is the exactly the same take as the skeptics who claim all UFOs are mundane or as yet to be identified natural phenomena, and that alien visitation is for UFO nuts who are little more than frauds and charlatans who need therapy. It's taking the heart right out of ufology, chopping it up into little pieces and feeding it to the dogs.
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
Ugh...where do you find the TIME to come up with replies like this? At least I admitted I was long winded on my last posting.
Okay, so experience has dictated that you're not going to change my mind and I'm clearing not going to change yours regarding the validity of Leslie Kean or her work, so I will make a feeble attempt to address a few of your points and then, frankly, I'm dropping it; not because I'm giving up, but because it's emotionally exhausting arguing much more then that with you, (and believe it or not, I say that with all due respect.)
I very much believe she has a PR strategy and no, I'm not naive enough to believe she only does it for the cause. I understand that Kean is not Mother Teresa...she does this for a living and has bills to pay. She does it to make money, yes, but she does not exploit her work nor the field of UFO research for money. That is where you and I strictly differ regarding her motivations.
Her appearances are very much a large factor in driving sales, but driving sales is not the primary factor of her appearances. In other words she does make appearances to promote herself and her book, but that is not the main reason she performs those appearances. She does so first-and-foremost to address the topic of UFOs and that they should be looked into by government and higher-official personnel. As far as her being the #1 UFO research celebrity out there, that's because of the quality of her work, not the quantity of her appearances nor the location of those appearances. Her book didn't become a best seller because she went on Colbert or any other major news outlet program. Her book became a best seller because it was good and that, in turn, caused her as the author to be in high demand.
I didn't feel it necessary to address the extent of the rest of your reply, mostly because I simply disagree with it and it would have been pointless to rant over it. The points I've made here were the ones that I felt important enough to address from an argumentative perspective.
Peace.
J.
Okay, so experience has dictated that you're not going to change my mind and I'm clearing not going to change yours regarding the validity of Leslie Kean or her work, so I will make a feeble attempt to address a few of your points and then, frankly, I'm dropping it; not because I'm giving up, but because it's emotionally exhausting arguing much more then that with you, (and believe it or not, I say that with all due respect.)
I very much believe she has a PR strategy and no, I'm not naive enough to believe she only does it for the cause. I understand that Kean is not Mother Teresa...she does this for a living and has bills to pay. She does it to make money, yes, but she does not exploit her work nor the field of UFO research for money. That is where you and I strictly differ regarding her motivations.
Her appearances are very much a large factor in driving sales, but driving sales is not the primary factor of her appearances. In other words she does make appearances to promote herself and her book, but that is not the main reason she performs those appearances. She does so first-and-foremost to address the topic of UFOs and that they should be looked into by government and higher-official personnel. As far as her being the #1 UFO research celebrity out there, that's because of the quality of her work, not the quantity of her appearances nor the location of those appearances. Her book didn't become a best seller because she went on Colbert or any other major news outlet program. Her book became a best seller because it was good and that, in turn, caused her as the author to be in high demand.
Actually yes. I'd like to hear/read the quote as I'm not familiar with that interview. Please provide me the link or location to the whole interview so I can review the quote in-context.
I respect Friedman's views, experience, and stance on UFO's myself, but, as you point out, he's a nuclear physicist by trade. That is a pointedly different group of people than the political and media crowd...which is who Kean is experienced and accomplished in dealing with. Kean knows her work and, as I said before, she knows her audience. As an analogy; Friedman is the science nerd who's joined the debate club where Kean is the debate-club president. Where Friedman knows what he's talking about from the scientific perspective of things, Kean knows much better how to play to the political crowd and avoid burning herself at the stake with outrageous claims and postulation which may or may not be fact-based (MJ-12 anyone?). They are two different players in the game but Kean knows not to make the political and public mistakes Friedman has made which damage his position and reputation. Hence her caution with the term UFO. Cite all the skeptic and debunker organizations you want, but Kean knows well that they are part of her audience, too, and because of that she is justifiably cautious in her terminology and usage of UFO. In my opinion, she toes that line extremely well.
I didn't feel it necessary to address the extent of the rest of your reply, mostly because I simply disagree with it and it would have been pointless to rant over it. The points I've made here were the ones that I felt important enough to address from an argumentative perspective.
Peace.
J.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Keep them shorter and I'll be just as happy
. In fact if you want, just skip to the end now. If you're interested, then reflect on it for a while and review the rest later.Hmm ... the word exploit. At this stage I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that it's not an intentional exploitation because she honestly believes the strategy she's signed onto is fair. However the truth of the matter is that it's not fair, and I'm conflicted as to how to proceed. If she's aware of the damage this divisive strategy is doing then it's intentional and most certainly exploitive, and that can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If she just hasn't seen it, then there's room for hope.
The above sounds quite naïve. If she just wanted to share the information she could have put it all on a free access website. The fact is that her livelihood is as a journalist, this job is her bread and butter, and the primary reason of media appearances is to further that career. But don't take it from me, she herself calls herself a journalist, not a ufologist, and she tries to make it sound as if it's just another topic for her, and there's little denying that it's also one that has also proven to be very successful. The irony is that much of that success comes from the support of the very people Pope's recommendation advises NARCAP to distance themselves from. Sooner or later you've got to see the hypocrisy. However, at the same time I'm not suggesting that she doesn't advocate the position of witnesses she mentions in her book.
I'm not suggesting her book didn't take some work. But I saw her on TV and heard her well before her book went viral. Again, do you honestly believe there was no coordinated campaign. Have you never been to a book launch? And make no mistake, the reason it was a best seller is ultimately because her target market paid for it. Who is that target market you might wonder? Just look at the biggest letters on the front cover for a clue, and the words in small print for the rest.
I'd like to read more of it myself. The quote I extracted is only a small part of a much larger piece titled, "Recommended Actions to Improve the Current Climate of Denial within the Aviation World about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Related Commentary" ( and you thought we were getting long winded ). It's quite an interesting paper overall. Other authors besides Pope, including Kean are mentioned. At one point I believe it's mentioned that Pope claimed that an avoidance of the word UFO had led to some other project getting funding. Exactly how he was able to make that particular determination is unclear, but either way it's even more evidence that money over ufology is the recommended action. To clinch the fact that the strategy is in active play, just have another listen to Kean's interview with that in mind. You'll start to see this in another light. Anyway the paper is on the NARCAP site in PDF form: http://narcap.org/files/narcap_TOP-02_PDF_11-18-10.pdf
You make the above point well, but for only one side of the equation. There are two audiences in play here. Those of us who already have done our homework ( serious ufologists ) and those who haven't ( the audience she's trying to convince ). The evidence here indicates that she's throwing one ( ufology ) under the bus in order to gain favor with the other. At some point this is going to come back to bite her. USI ( Ufology Society International ) has been around for over 20 years. I do my best to provide a rational constructive perspective backed by evidence and reasoning. So do many other ufologists. Determining the truth regarding alien visitation is not a stupid concept to be ridiculed or distanced from in order to secure funding and popularity votes.
What I'd appreciate from you is your insight on how to do damage control, otherwise responsible ufology will be cast back into the dark ages ( Project Grudge ) days. Essentially the question boils down to this: Is it possible to convince Kean, NARCAP, Pope and those who are being swayed by this divisive strategy that ufology proper doesn't deserve the same bad rap as the fringe element, and that we can work together for a common good that doesn't require either of our groups to abandon our core focus?
BTW: Anyone else who wants to butt in here with a positive suggestion please do so.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Fantastic point Goggs. What it helps to illustrate here is that responsible ufology is now getting it from all sides, the fringe element, the obnoxious skeptics, and people like NARCAP and Kean who I had personally considered to be bright rays of hope for the field, but who are now throwing us under the bus. It's hard to describe just how genuinely disheartening this development is.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Jimi, that sounds good in theory, but if you had read the other posts you would see why it's misleading. Scientists and politicians, the FAA, USAF, NARA, and others have been dealing with FOIA requests for information about UFOs for decades. It's nothing new to them. The original conclusion of the USAF Air technical Center intelligence analysts back in 1948 was that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial. Everybody, especially the general public knows exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about UFOs. It's only skeptics and other people with a pet agenda who refuse to accept that reality. This giggle factor that Kean is talking about is primarily a media phenomenon, and that has the potential to seriously affect popularity with the uninitiated.
The rest of us don't care if people laugh. It won't change our opinion. We're actually offended by it and it tends to harden our position. So what's the real agenda? Obviously an author can't come out on TV and say stop laughing at me because it's bad for book sales. It's better to just avoid that in the first place by throwing this synonym out there to get them tripped up before they have a chance to put on the big stupid grin. This is so transparent I'm having a hard time believing I'm the only one who can see it. Trust me, when she goes to talk to the Government ( who BTW she said during the interview she hasn't really made much of an effort to talk to for quite some time ), trust me, they'll also know exactly what she's talking about whether or not she uses the word UAP or UFO. That ball's going to end up in exactly the same corner of the court either way.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
You argue that Kean wants to talk away the ETH. I cannot see that, I think it's obvious that Kean is also interested in the EHT, because I read between the lines. If she had picked the easy cases pro-forma, she could control the conclusions into debunktion, but she likes the 'hard' cases, where possibly noone can find an explanation. So I can read between the lines what she's getting at..
Off course, in the end, it doesn't matter how we label unknown objects, that won't change the nature of the object. It seems you're afraid that if we leave 'ET' out of the language, the ETH topic will disappear? Don't worry, it will still be here tomorrow and forever, as it's a topic that can't be concluded in the negative. If ET is not here now, they could arrive tomorrow. There is no end to it, ever. For better or worse.
We don't 'believe' in ET's because of the language we use, or our systems of speculation, we believe it if the evidence is there. So I basically don't care about the history or traditions of ufology, I just want to look at the evidence, regardless. I personally think ufological history is interesting, and often significantly more enjoyable to read than raw UFO reports, but in the end only the evidence will convince people we want to convince, including ourselves.
Kean is just using the language she thinks is the best, to get more public interest. It really won't change any cases. Ok, you say you think she's in cohorts with the wrong people, but, honestly, I think that is a misreading of her, and what she says. If I'm wrong, so be it, it won't mean the end of ETH ufology.
Off course, in the end, it doesn't matter how we label unknown objects, that won't change the nature of the object. It seems you're afraid that if we leave 'ET' out of the language, the ETH topic will disappear? Don't worry, it will still be here tomorrow and forever, as it's a topic that can't be concluded in the negative. If ET is not here now, they could arrive tomorrow. There is no end to it, ever. For better or worse.
We don't 'believe' in ET's because of the language we use, or our systems of speculation, we believe it if the evidence is there. So I basically don't care about the history or traditions of ufology, I just want to look at the evidence, regardless. I personally think ufological history is interesting, and often significantly more enjoyable to read than raw UFO reports, but in the end only the evidence will convince people we want to convince, including ourselves.
Kean is just using the language she thinks is the best, to get more public interest. It really won't change any cases. Ok, you say you think she's in cohorts with the wrong people, but, honestly, I think that is a misreading of her, and what she says. If I'm wrong, so be it, it won't mean the end of ETH ufology.
Ezechiel
Paranormal Adept
It's good judgment on her part. If she can find the weak point of governmental resistance (dating back to 1969) to this subject she'll hit the jackpot big time. Its an intellectual and financial challenge more than anything else.
The truth is out there and something as simple as stored NORAD radar tracks is most likely the key to this mystery (unless all the good ones are trashed immediately). Getting access to smoking guns and an official response around documented events (Alaska flight JAL) would be a great help. We'll finally be able to answer: 'Dr, can humans really build these crafts lol' .... If the answer is no, we'll have our answer by default
Dr, would an ape make a human doll that talks?
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
Exactly!
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Read between the lines all you want. Maybe that's why you can't see what she's actually saying.
Excuse me, but how we label the subject matter and the people associated with it makes a huge difference. Otherwise we'd have no problem with words like nigger, spic, heeb. After all calling them that won't change the nature of them as people right? Relegating them to second class citizens doesn't matter because after all, they'll still be here tomorrow, right? Throwing ufology in general under the bus by painting it all with one brush coated with nut cases, scammers and misfits is no different in principle. It's taking an identifiable group and marginalizing it for the sake of personal prestige.
You may not care about the history or traditions of ufology. That's fine. I don't study Jewish history or Black Culture, but I still recognize when an identifiable group, in this case ufologists and those who believe alien visitation is real are being marginalized by someone in a position of influence. I support the cause of fairness in whatever situation I'm aware of and in particular those I'm involved with.
Actually I keep saying I want to believe in Leslie Kean. I'm not convinced she's aware of the ramifications of what she's supporting by promoting this anti-ufology agenda. Same goes for NARCAP. I wouldn't say they're the wrong people. I'd say they're sending the wrong message. It's divisive and unfair for those of us doing responsible ufology. Rationalizing that it's OK because it won't mean the end of ETH ufology is no different in principle than accepting apartheid, after all, segregating ufology from "legitimate research" so that ufology celebrities assure themselves a place in line at the drinking fountain won't mean we all still won't be here tomorrow. Surely you must see that that isn't the point?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
It's good judgment on her part. If she can find the weak point of governmental resistance (dating back to 1969) to this subject she'll hit the jackpot big time. Its an intellectual and financial challenge more than anything else.
The truth is out there and something as simple as stored NORAD radar tracks is most likely the key to this mystery (unless all the good ones are trashed immediately). Getting access to smoking guns and an official response around documented events (Alaska flight JAL) would be a great help. We'll finally be able to answer: 'Dr, can humans really build these crafts lol' .... If the answer is no, we'll have our answer by default
You're not getting it. So far as this strategy Kean's bought into is concerned, NORAD radar tracks would mean anything else but UFOs because the pursuit of ufology and belief in alien craft is for UFO nuts, and con-men.
TalkingMeatSuit
Paranormal Maven
Why is it such a big deal that she has a publicist? Writing a book as she has done takes a lot of time and resources. Not everyone can be independently wealthy to the point of donating all their time to a cause and not taking a cent for it. What should she have done? Write a big-ass book then hide it under a rock, never promoting it? It reminds me of the criticisms leveled at people with alleged "psychic gifts", "this is a gift from [god, zeus, flying spaghetti monster, whoever], how dare you charge for it?". There's nothing wrong with doing good work while having food and shelter at the same time. I don't see the authors of college textbooks being criticized for getting paid.
Is her stance on things really that damaging to ufology? I mean, just LOOK at some the people in this field. The bigfoot and UFO folks are riddled with infighting, I don't blame her for distancing herself from it to try and maintain a public profile in which the mainstream will still take her seriously. At this point it's a pipe dream to think that everyone is going to work together. So what if she and others want to shy away from use of the acronym "UFO"? I'd venture to guess that her approach has helped people to consider the topic that would never consider it otherwise, which is more than can be said about most in this field.
The people who already believe in the legitimacy of the field won't suddenly change their viewpoint based on her work anyway. From where I sit there's not much to lose here, and just an opportunity to gain momentum.
Is her stance on things really that damaging to ufology? I mean, just LOOK at some the people in this field. The bigfoot and UFO folks are riddled with infighting, I don't blame her for distancing herself from it to try and maintain a public profile in which the mainstream will still take her seriously. At this point it's a pipe dream to think that everyone is going to work together. So what if she and others want to shy away from use of the acronym "UFO"? I'd venture to guess that her approach has helped people to consider the topic that would never consider it otherwise, which is more than can be said about most in this field.
The people who already believe in the legitimacy of the field won't suddenly change their viewpoint based on her work anyway. From where I sit there's not much to lose here, and just an opportunity to gain momentum.