Ron James Episode

[TalkingMeatSuit]

He's a friend of one of the hosts - ya can't expect them to give him the Robbert van den Broeke treatment.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I had no problem asking him a few probing questions.

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

Indeed sir - not disputing that. Was mostly just replying on the "ya were too soft on him" sentiment. It's not like he's someone with something "off" to hawk or prove. It was just a casual convo episode with a friend of the show.

I'm on day 3 of a diet/fast for this thing I'm getting ready to do (which I'll post about after), and my brain just isn't working without regular food, coffee, and the recreational "smokes" I'm not the swiftest boat in the bay at the moment.

 

[Randall]

When it comes to using UFO, we did that in the 1950s and 1960s with Major Donald Keyhoe, NICAP and their attempts to get disclosure and ad admission that UFOs were likely extraterrestrial. That, and sightings in Michigan, encouraged then-Congressman Gerald Ford to hold such hearings. We ended up with the Condon Report. Why assume that things are going to be different now? That approach simply failed, and every effort since then has failed.

Exactly.

Isn't it time to try something new?

Do you really think they don't see right through what she's doing? Maybe this will help get the point across ...

​

Maybe daddy will say, OK, if you want to go to
the library that bad, go ahead ... maybe.​

 

[Gene Steinberg]

No doubt, but it gives them a tiny bit of plausible deniability: They aren't looking for spaceships, they are just trying to figure out what some pretty credible people are seeing. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Randall]

All she's saying is, "Let's just stick to the facts." Right now, what we CAN prove is that something strange is going on overhead. What we CAN'T prove is what that something is. And I don't really see a problem with taking a conservative approach and not making claims or assertions that we can't really back up. The most important thing right now is just to get people outside of the UFO community to recognize that SOMETHING is happening. Once that has happened, the rest will take care of itself. So from that perspective, I really don't see a problem with her approach and I'm not sure why you seem to be so emotional about it.

Why am I emotional? I guess I'm only human. Kean is a UFO celebrity who many of us in the ufology community considered a shining example of responsible reporting. She was someone who was demonstrating to the powers that be that we're not all a bunch of loonies. To support her effort I bought a hard copy of her book and have recommended it to others. So to find out now, that she has adopted an anti-ufology strategy to distance herself from all us UFO nuts, and to make a point of portraying herself as someone who is removed from UFOs and ufology by way of her role as a journalist is really disappointing. At USI ( the group I'm with ), we've adopted the term UAP as it was meant to be used by its inventor, which is to refer to anomalous aerial phenomena that fall outside the definition of UFO as alien craft. I personally think it's a good idea to use the acronym UAP to help people differentiate between alien craft and all the other stuff that's going on. The problem is that she's taken it a step beyond that to marginalize UFOs as something else and unworthy of serious consideration. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

[Randall]

No doubt, but it gives them a tiny bit of plausible deniability: They aren't looking for spaceships, they are just trying to figure out what some pretty credible people are seeing. Let the chips fall where they may.

Why bother with "plausible deniability"? What ever happened to just being honest? How can someone stand before an official and say they're asking about one thing but don't really mean that and mean something else, and still be taken seriously? Or that what they're asking for isn't what we're really interested in because after all that's all just crazy? If she's not interested in finding out the truth regarding alien visitation, then she's just exploiting ufology. If she were being honest about it she'd give back her ufology awards, remove the word UFO from the cover of her book and then let the chips fall where they may. UAPs might be interesting, but we want to know the truth regarding UFOs. Anyway, please don't get me wrong here. Like I said way back at the beginning of this is that I want to believe in Leslie. She seems like a really nice lady, and it's not too late for her to realign herself with the people who have truly supported her ... the ufology community. She just needs to be careful to pick her friends wisely. We're not all irresponsible nut cases.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Here's the deal: The existing approaches haven't worked. Let's see how her approach turns out.

 

[Randall]

Here's the deal: The existing approaches haven't worked. Let's see how her approach turns out.

Either approach could turn out one way or the other, but is not how we make the journey is as important as reaching the destination? Kean's claim to be doing "Advocacy Journalism" against "irrational attitudes" is cutting both ways, on one side against the fears of the governments against disclosure, and on the other against ufology and those who know alien visitation is a reality, coming to rest somewhere in between, amid the vagueness of UAPs and the issue of airline safety. I'm sorry if I have a hard time accepting the collateral damage that goes along with it.

 

[wwkirk]

ufology and those who know alien visitation is a reality, coming to rest somewhere in between, amid the vagueness of UAPs and the issue of airline safety. I'm sorry if I have a hard time accepting the collateral damage that goes along with it.

UFO does not mean alien craft. It means unidentified flying object. In that respect it is indistinguishable from UAP because we don't ever know that we are dealing with alien craft. Contrary to what you say above, nobody knows alien visitation is a reality. Some people just think that they do.

With this in mind, Leslie's conservative approach appears very reasonable.

 

[Randall]

UFO does not mean alien craft.

Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that the word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft and therefore that is what it means.

It means unidentified flying object. In that respect it is indistinguishable from UAP because we don't ever know that we are dealing with alien craft. Contrary to what you say above, nobody knows alien visitation is a reality. Some people just think that they do. With this in mind, Leslie's conservative approach appears very reasonable.

What the letters UFO stand for and what the word means are two different concepts, and BTW, the acronym UFO is not alone in this situation. Unfortunately most people don't have a grasp of this truth and therefore make the same faulty presumption. I've been through this more times now than I care to count, so please read the article here for the supporting evidence. If after that you still have some objection, please provide counterpoint to the specific issues raised. If you find some error in either the evidence or the logic, then I'd be happy to change my position.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I agree with both of you. When attempting to define the undefinable, sometimes languaging cannot fully convey our most earnest intention.

 

[Randall]

I agree with both of you. When attempting to define the undefinable, sometimes languaging cannot fully convey our most earnest intention.

@wwkirk

• I agree with wwkirk that Kean's conservative approach is very reasonable, but that's about all.
• A less slightly less conservative approach that doesn't marginalize UFOs or ufology is also reasonable, IMO even more reasonable.
• Using the acronym UAP and UFO synonymously is erroneous. UAP was created in part to separate the phenomena NARCAP was primarily interested in from UFOs. This was also done specifically because the word UFO conveys the idea of alien craft, which last time I checked their website had been relegated to the realm of "entertainment".
• Saying "we just think we know" UFOs are alien craft isn't a logically supportable argument against knowing UFOs ( alien craft ) are real.
  • First of all, everything we know is something we think we know, and therefore the statement is pointless.
  • The process of thinking is itself the acquisition of knowledge, hence the state of knowing comes from thought.
  • Observing a UFO provides direct knowledge by firsthand sensory experience, which is the foundation of empirical evidence.
  • Lastly even if UFOs don't exist doesn't mean that the word UFO cannot be used to convey the idea of alien craft. The Millenium Falcon doesn't exist, but most people know exactly what we're talking about when we use that name. As Vallée put it, the word UFO is used to identify a class of objects. In this context, the overwhelming evidence in usage clearly illustrates that the class of objects that UFOs belong to is that of alien craft.
• The word UFO is fully definable. What UFOs aren't, is fully explainable. The most reasonable definition as supported by logical analysis and historical evidence can be found on the USI website ( here ).