Leslie Kean episode

[J.T.]

Thanks for this smart and informative show. I have low hopes that the government will do anything to acknowledge the subject officially, as it is still a political suicide. I think there may be actual interest and support on both sides of the aisle for something like this, but it's a long way before somebody is willing to step forward in an official capacity to do something about it, especially in this time of unemployment and monetary crisis. If something is going to happen, it will be -- as in the case of space travel -- from the private sector.

Nice of Chris and Gene to touch upon specifically the apparent ETH bias of the book, which may be sensible for book sales and keeping it all pointed to a simple soundbite reality instead of clouding the issue with the real uncertainty of EVERYTHING related to the subject. I wish this wasn't the case, but I suppose I can appreciate her narrow and precise focus.

The word ufo is to the greater public like the Robert Anton Wilson's use of 'fnord.' It draws ridicule and derision that you can only liken to religious fervor. It occludes the issue. I wish her book had been called Unidentified Flying Objects instead of using the shorthand word (which has become a word meaning 'an alien craft that crazy people believe in' -- the acronym has ceased to exist).

But in short, a very interesting episode, hope she can get to some high visibility programs and manages to avoid both the religious and the atheist nutcases on the issue. And would be great if you can get her and Fyfe Symington (sp?) on the show after a few months has passed, to recap the reception and observe the momentum.

Cheers, --JT.

 

[jkoci]

I actually got to listen last night. Leslie is always a great guest. It is refreshing that she doesn't speculate about things she just doesn't know about. I hope her new book opens up the discussion more to those who are still in the closet about their experiences. As I listened to her I wondered how many other credible military/airline pilots have stories to tell and are either not comfortable or are unable at the present time to tell them.

 

[NTS]

I haven't read her book, but even if she has credible evidence I doubt the government would fund any UFO research. After all, SETI funding (which had support from the scientific establishment) got cancelled after only a year. You might slide something through if you could put a military/defense spin on it (e.g. we want to know if anyone spots our stealth planes). Other than that, I think J.T. is right -- research on anything in the UFO ballpark will have to be privately funded.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I haven't read her book, but even if she has credible evidence I doubt the government would fund any UFO research. After all, SETI funding (which had support from the scientific establishment) got cancelled after only a year. You might slide something through if you could put a military/defense spin on it (e.g. we want to know if anyone spots our stealth planes). Other than that, I think J.T. is right -- research on anything in the UFO ballpark will have to be privately funded.

And I wouldn't want them to. I think it is an area for private research. I see some good ideas floated about but am not sure where they stand. Carrion's idea for a database of sightings was a good one, but who knows where that's at now. The old Hynek close encounters system was the right idea but I'd like to see something related just to sightings.

A sighting with two unconnected witnesses in different locations seeing the same thing would be a separate category. Aircraft that performs maneuvers beyond known conventional aircraft might be another. Something along those lines. Perhaps this was implemented somewhere. Perhaps there are some other ideas.

 

[J.T.]

I would "want" them to, if only for having some clout and respectability, and making the subject more acceptable. I think this process can be likened to the slow acceptance of medicinal value of cannabis after years of ridicule, disinformation and lies perpetrated by the big pharma. With ufos it's the same from the military-industral complex. Still some ways to go, but somebody has to get the ball rolling besides the ufo 'stoners.'

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Ya' always know that when an episode's thread gets barely any replies the guest did a good job in the credibility department. It's the controversial ones that get a buttload of responses. Good job, Leslie.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

I haven't read her book, but even if she has credible evidence I doubt the government would fund any UFO research. After all, SETI funding (which had support from the scientific establishment) got cancelled after only a year. You might slide something through if you could put a military/defense spin on it (e.g. we want to know if anyone spots our stealth planes). Other than that, I think J.T. is right -- research on anything in the UFO ballpark will have to be privately funded.

Which is why I keep hoping Bill Gates will get anal probed.

 

[Kandinsky]

In spite of the regular breaks, it was a great interview. I enjoyed it a great deal. She's cut from similar cloth to Richard Haines in the way she's not going to make any definitive statements, or even speculate on what the phenomena could be. As game-plans for credibility and generating corporate or political interest go, it's a winner. I found her optimism to be encouraging as she expressed her ambitions at the end of the interview. If any group of people are going to encourage a legitimate argument in favour of further research into UFO/UAP, she's in there and showing the way.

On a side-note and having a small axe to grind...a proportion of people who share an interest in UFOs look to certain people or groups to lead the way. I'm thinking of Greer or the Exopolitics folk. They look to presidents, ex-presidents or ex-president's wives. The CFI and associates of NARCAP have more chance of achieving some form of progress than the others and somehow don't generate the attention. There's a lot of irony in there.

People will fight to the death in support of the bad elements, distractions and 'deflectionists' and won't raise an opinion on the people really working honestly for progress. Over on ATS, there's a squabble about CSETI, ECETI and the other dodgy cast of characters. Jim Oberg is posting negative comments about Leslie Kean's book....maybe sour grapes after the court case?

Enough rambling, it was a very good interview and all involved are appreciated. Like Wickerman pointed it out, it's the credible interviews that pass by unnoticed or uncommented on. The Haines interview didn't set the forums alight either.

 

[Brian Now]

I thought this was a good episode and I will consider getting Leslie's book. I realize she's doing what many in the UFO/Paranormal field do, that is they tell other people's stories. But from the interview, it seems she's doing it the right way.

 

[toxicsurf]

Great interview with Kean, just all those darn commercials are starting to drive me nuts. I'm working my way through her book now and it's ceratinly a great read...Unfortuantely, any hopes of this book leading to bigger and greater things as far as public awareness is doubtful. I wish it werent so. BUT, as opposed to nearly all UFO related books, I've seen her book prominantly displayed at a couple different major book stores in their "new releases" section. Lets hope to see it on some Top Seller lists!...

Jim Oberg is posting negative comments about Leslie Kean's book....maybe sour grapes after the court case

Such a douchebag, Oberg has come through with some good info in certain areas, but his "know-it-all", "I'm the master of all NASA info", holier-than-thou" attitude just sucks. I absolutelly hate to say this (based on principle, and it's knee-jerk reaction sound), but he really comes off as a NASA shill, cover-up, dis-information agent. I can barely stomach most of his posts, but always want to read what everyone is thinking and saying, I wouldnt want to discount or ignore something that my be important after-all...I'm always willing to learn and be open-minded enough to look at athings from different angles and/or perspectives....

 

[Kandinsky]

Such a douchebag, Oberg has come through with some good info in certain areas, but his "know-it-all", "I'm the master of all NASA info", holier-than-thou" attitude just sucks. I absolutelly hate to say this (based on principle, and it's knee-jerk reaction sound), but he really comes off as a NASA shill, cover-up, dis-information agent. I can barely stomach most of his posts, but always want to read what everyone is thinking and saying, I wouldnt want to discount or ignore something that my be important after-all...I'm always willing to learn and be open-minded enough to look at athings from different angles and/or perspectives....

I hear you on that one. I'm not against the guy, but there's a definite trend to dismiss witnesses, incidents and technology as unreliable, misinterpreted or faulty.

He can come across as all these things you describe although there's another possible reason.

I've a couple of cynical mates who laugh out loud at UFO stuff. They know there's no such thing. The idea is ridiculous to them. I wonder if Jim Oberg is so certain in his mind that the UFO phenomena is explainable by known causes that every case is wrong? If this is the case and he's mentally unable to allow for the possibility, it colours his reactions and causes a bias he's unaware off.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

Ya' always know that when an episode's thread gets barely any replies the guest did a good job in the credibility department. It's the controversial ones that get a buttload of responses. Good job, Leslie.

Great point, Wickerman!!!!!

A great show! I can't wait to read Leslie's book: the only drawback--a thought that kept creeping into my mind as I listened--is that the book seems to rely almost entirely on witness accounts and argument from authority. I often recalled how quickly and easily I was drawn back into this subject area after stumbling across COL Corso, and how disillusioned I was the more I delved into his claims. Who he was disposed me to believe everything he said. I should have known better.

But I applaud Leslie for all of the hard work she has done here. I'm sure her book will go down as another important step forward in uncovering the truth.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Great point, Wickerman!!!!!

A great show! I can't wait to read Leslie's book: the only drawback--a thought that kept creeping into my mind as I listened--is that the book seems to rely almost entirely on witness accounts and argument from authority. I often recalled how quickly and easily I was drawn back into this subject area after stumbling across COL Corso, and how disillusioned I was the more I delved into his claims. Who he was disposed me to believe everything he said. I should have known better.

But I applaud Leslie for all of the hard work she has done here. I'm sure her book will go down as another important step forward in uncovering the truth.

Yeah, she is interested in hard, nuts and bolts cases with official connections. Anytime an effort is being put forward to get congress or scientists interested these seem to be the types of cases chosen. It's against my way of thinking though. Maybe I'm just weird but the cases that impress me the most are multi-witness CE3s. Imo some of the most convincing incidents are Allagash, Kelly Cahill, Pascagoula, the Hills, etc. These are the types of events that keep me interested in Ufology. I go through phases where I start doubting the reality of the phenomenon and it isn't the sort of incidents noted in Kean's book that ends up bringing me back, it's these close encounters. While I can dream up excuses for even the best of reports of objects in the sky (Experimental military aircraft are always a convenient scapegoat or just plain ol' mistakes) I struggle with the stories told by the likes of Cahill and Hickson. There just doesn't seem to be as much leeway with these latter cases. Either they experienced what they say they did or they're liars (And don't give me this crap that multiple people can/will hallucinate exactly the same thing down to small details at exactly the same time. I'll believe Elvis is alive before I'll accept that horseshit). But while I consider these stories to be the most convincing evidence Ufology has for something extraordinary happening they are the very incidents that others make sure to keep out of their arguments. So like I said, maybe it's just me.

 

[brado]

I would "want" them to, if only for having some clout and respectability, and making the subject more acceptable. I think this process can be likened to the slow acceptance of medicinal value of cannabis after years of ridicule, disinformation and lies perpetrated by the big pharma. With ufos it's the same from the military-industral complex. Still some ways to go, but somebody has to get the ball rolling besides the ufo 'stoners.'

The only way the government will fund ufo research will be to create another agency for the purpose of controlling the information and diseminating more disinformation. If the government knows something and isn't telling us, then they are not going to change that philosophy. It was a very good episode.
Peace

 

[rwahrens]

I just read her book, and when you get near the end, she specifically says that she is agnostic, and takes that term to an extreme in wanting to get the government to move forward. Over and over in the book, she pays service to many of her contributors' opinions in that direction, but ALWAYS appends the note that "we just don't know".

Read it closer, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I just read her book, and when you get near the end, she specifically says that she is agnostic, and takes that term to an extreme in wanting to get the government to move forward. Over and over in the book, she pays service to many of her contributors' opinions in that direction, but ALWAYS appends the note that "we just don't know".

Read it closer, and you'll see what I mean.

Well, that's a smart approach because the cases remain unexplained. Although as I heard Phil Plait say today in regards to the book and Kaku's words about it, "unexplained does not mean unexplainable."

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Well, that's a smart approach because the cases remain unexplained. Although as I heard Phil Plait say today in regards to the book and Kaku's words about it, "unexplained does not mean unexplainable."

But his pointing that out isn't significant either. Just a meaningless play on words.

 

[rwahrens]

Well, that's a smart approach because the cases remain unexplained. Although as I heard Phil Plait say today in regards to the book and Kaku's words about it, "unexplained does not mean unexplainable."

Absolutely! that's one of the reasons I like her book, she makes that point so consistently throughout.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

But his pointing that out isn't significant either. Just a meaningless play on words.

How is it meaningless? It is patently obvious once you read her book. There are countless natural phenomenon we used to think were unexplainable, yet, today, most of them are now just part of high school science classes. The point is that we will never know unless we TRY.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

If the government knows something and isn't telling us, then they are not going to change that philosophy. It was a very good episode.
Peace

Her point is that it is possible to separate the two. No reason for the secret investigations to be revealed in order to start a new, honest investigative organization in concert with international efforts. Eventually, the current paradigm will be gradually replaced by one where the secret stuff will no longer matter - or the open investigation will overtake the secret one and make it obsolete.