UFO Religions

Review of Leslie Kean’s UFOs

Leslie Kean, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record (Three Rivers Press, 2011).

I read Leslie Kean’s book a few months ago but haven’t gotten around to a review until now. Readers should not take that delay as a sign of my own reticence or the book’s quality. UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record has earned a place on my (very) short list of books I’d recommend to anyone who is either new to the UFO subject, perhaps thinking it a waste of intellectual time, or those who want to read only serious material. In short, this was a very good read and worth the time invested.

As other reviewers have noted, the content of Kean’s book is restricted to the testimony and opinions of a select group of experienced pilots and high-ranking government officials and military brass whose positions put them at the forefront of official UFO investigations in their airspace. Several also have scientific backgrounds. In a nutshell, if one wanted to arbitrarily assemble a “dream team” of serious, technical witnesses to UFO phenomena, it would look a lot like the panoply of individuals featured in Kean’s book. Examples include Major General Wilfrid de Brouwer (tasked with the military investigation of the Belgian UFO wave of 1989 and 1990) and Captain Julio Miguel Guerra of the Portuguese Air Force, whose testimony of a harrowing experience chasing a UFO that ultimately (and literally) flew circles around his fighter jet in 1982. The episode was also witnessed by another pilot.

Due to the nature of the witnesses involved, Kean’s book is not propelled by speculation, weird theories of alien visitation, overly technical descriptions of UFO aerospace capabilities, or conspiracy theories. The recollections are mercifully void of breathless histrionics and New-Agey pablum about aliens so common in other UFO books. The book features highly credible people telling their stories, part of which involve the inner workings of how real government agencies pursue UFO investigations — collecting evidence and analyzing that evidence. The book is committed to factual reporting, something not surprising given Kean’s background as an investigative journalist.

Beyond the reports of the experiences of her star witnesses, Kean spends several chapters discussing the questions that naturally arise from such material. These chapters feature coherent discussion of the efforts to debunk the events in which the witnesses were involved. This is a strength of the book. The weak point of the book, in my view, is Kean’s chapter outlining an action plan that governments ought to follow if they are serious about investigating the phenomenon with a goal toward some sort of resolution. The points of the plan are, on the whole good ones, but Kean is naively optimistic, especially in respect to the current American administration. If Kean spent a tenth of the time looking at the faux transparency of the current administration, she’d temper her optimism. But that is a minor complaint.

Kean’s book is also a very good illustration of why I don’t think that the case for an ET presence is a slam dunk for the UFO phenomenon, even with this cadre of witnesses. That may sound odd. Time and again, those witnesses who come down on the side of the ET explanation do so on the basis of one, and only one, argument: the technology they have witnessed. Since these witnesses know of no analogy to the technology in their own military hardware, or that of other nations they have witnessed, they feel compelled to opt for the ET explanation. I find this understandable, but not coherent or compelling.

Ultimately, the technology argument requires omniscience of the witnesses. Those of us who listen to them and take them as truth-tellers (and I do) are required to believe that since they know of no human analogy for the technology, then none must exist. That is an argument from silence. That argument also cannot be used as proof for ETs since that would mean it seeks to prove something on the basis of what it is assuming. In other words, it is circular (“There must be aliens because the UFOs I’ve seen must be using alien and not human technology”). This is, bluntly, bogus logic. But it’s a genuine, natural response. I seek only to point out its ultimate inefficacy, not to criticize it for its own sake.  And that is where we are. We cannot know for sure (and neither can these witnesses) that if human technology of this sort existed, they would surely know about it. That’s just a guess, and one with a tiny bit of ego infused. We also cannot be sure that nations would share such technology if they had it with their allies. History is filled with such inconsistencies, as military-industrial complexes habitually want to maintain advantages.

So what does Kean’s book give us beyond lots of credible witness testimony? In sum, while it cannot prove the ET hypothesis, it at least informs the reader that, while an explanation for them is not immediately forthcoming and satisfactory, UFOs are demonstrably real and deserving of serious study.

Technorati Tags: government, Kean, military, pilots, science, UFOs

Is the Idea of Man-Made UFOs a Myth? Part 3

This is my third and final response to the UFO Iconoclast post opposed to the idea of man-made UFOs. (See Part 1 and Part 2). I just finished the new book by Vallee and Aubeck and will be writing a lengthy review of it.

My responses are at “MSH” and blocked off. I think you will see that these arguments lack persuasive power and can be turned back to anyone who makes them in such as a way as to demonstrate their un-compelling nature.

On the very face of it there are very fundamental reasons why such fantastic craft cannot be our own. If we have had such aerial abilities for so many decades:

1) Why do they fly in full view of civilian populations or within commercial air routes?

With all of the hundreds of thousands of square miles of Area 51′s and other such places, why fly publicly? It may test the “reaction” of the populace, but it would at the same time unnecessarily expose the technology and performance capabilities to enemy powers. In reality, security would never be compromised in that way.

MSH: I don’t find this at all persuasive. It compels us to believe that a sighting ranging from a few seconds to a couple of minutes will yield technological information. Unless observers have X-Ray vision, I don’t see how that is the case. Most of the best sightings are at high altitude, and so chances of detection are themselves minimal, and all the observer really knows is that “I’ve never seen one of those before,” or “we aint’ got one like that as far as I know.” Big deal. Now, the argument would be much better if there were USA-AF decals on the craft. THEN it would make sense to not fly these things anywhere they could be seen, because then you actually ARE risking sensitive information (like, “hey, this UFO is ours”). But without that, all a sighting does is perpetuate a mystery (or a convenient mythology; see below).

MSH: This argument can be reversed as follows: “Since civilians and other people, including commerical pilots, see UFOs, that means they cannot be man-made. Does that *really* make sense?

2) Why don’t we use this technology to transport our astronauts into space?

It makes no sense that if such UFO-like capabilities are man-made that they would not be applied in the exploration of the cosmos. Why continue to use “outdated” technology that relies on conventional combustion and thrust technologies, with extremely limited range and with significant safety issues?

MSH: This presumes speed is all one would need for space flight. There may very well be other technologically-related safety issues. It’s easy to presume there aren’t if one a priori assumes such craft are ET and are used to travel in deep space, but we don’t actually know that. At any rate, let’s assume they can do that. Then we are asked to believe that ineptitude on the part of the military is a reason to consider the craft extraterrestrial. Last time I checked, things like government waste, bureaucratic rivalry, and plain short-sighted stupidity are alive and well in the military and most other corporate entities. A bad decision does not an ET vehicle make. We also have to consider that, if these are man-made and there is some internal reason (comprehensible or sensible or not) for maintaining secrecy, that alone would be enough reason for whoever is in charge to remain using the old technology when it can get the job done.

MSH: Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology to send people to space, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Say what?

3) Why is the technology not used in warfare?

If such things have been developed by our government, why have they not been applied in national defense? It would have instantly ended conflicts in past decades in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. If another country has been the developer of UFO-like technology, why have they not exercised such amazing aerial superiority during conflict?

MSH: See my response above; it applies here as well. One could add that the reasoning might be the same as why we don’t just whip out an atomic bomb to end conflicts quickly and decisively. It may be too destructive. But my bet is on the fact that wars are inescapably political. Take the war on terror. We could end it in a day if we just nuked everybody, or if we took the handcuffs off our forces and allowed them to actually use the other weapons we have. But we don’t do that, and haven’t, since WWII.

Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology for military purposes, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Ditto on “say what?”

4) Why don’t we use this technology in commercial air flight?

Such navigation and propulsion breakthroughs would revolutionize the flight of people and parcel. Billions would stand to be made- and everyone would appreciate shortened flights!

MSH: This is a better question, but still not very persuasive for simple reasons. So, we give our UFO technology to Boeing or Delta and then the technology is as close to falling into the hands of our enemies as a hijacking. Right. Good idea. Did Dilbert’s boss think of that plan?  I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to suggest that, if the military industrial complex is behind UFO technology we ought to expect it a reasonable thing to do would be share it with commerical entities. If the military industrial complex thought such technology gave us a military edge, they would withhold it from such public use, since that would invariably mean more porous security.

MSH: Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology for commercial flight, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Really?  Is it that simple?

5) Why hasn’t the aerial technology been used to take over the world?

If the “controllers” of such technology are of nefarious intent (i.e. former Nazis, the Illuminati or even an enemy country) why have they not openly displayed their terror technology and by now have commanded the world’s allegiance?

MSH: This is also a better question, but one that presumes certain things in relation to the man-made argument it is targeting. For instance, one could take the targeted view and say something like, “since this technology derives from Nazi science, and since members of the teams who worked on projects that are related to exotic flight (see Farrell’s books here, e.g.), then it is possible that this technology may be in mutliple hands (U.S. included) or at least suspected of being in multiple hands.” In other words, one could apply the MAD logic to this question (Mutually Assured Destruction — anyone remember the Cold War?). But that’s guesswork. It also presupposes that anyone holding this technology is interested in world domination. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe they are content with their own little invisible empire that’s puttering along just fine while the rest of the known geo-political entities implode just fine on their own. But maybe they are interested in world domination and don’t think they can pull it off. Would 100 UFOs do that?  Last time I checked, all a UFO was really good for was SPEED. I don’t recall much in the way of any reports that UFOs were weaponized (they “are for peace, always,” right?). Let’s say some entity has 100 or 1000 of these craft. Now what? All one would need to do is find out where they are an nuke them. They aren’t indestructible (can we say “UFO crash”?). My point is that, since we are using our imaginations, if I had a UFO squadron I’d be pretty scared about anyone knowing about them, because they are quite destructible, and the facilities I have to make them and house them are also quite destructible. Hey, one piece of imagination is as good as another.

MSH: This one has another problem. It can be reversed very easily on the ET view: “If UFOs are ET vehicles, why isn’t ET using them to take over the world?” Hmmm.  Maybe they don’t want to.  And maybe the humans who might have them don’t want to, either. Oh, I forgot, ET is far more enlightened than we are. He told us so. If he exists. Or there’s this reversal: Since no single human group has taken over the world yet, none such group can be behind UFO technology. That one has some serious gaps of thought.

6) Why haven’t other scientists anywhere in the world “stumbled upon” such aerial breakthroughs in intervening decades?

It is inconceivable that only a very few working within deep black programs (or who were WWII Germans scientists, secret Tesla disciples or the like) could alone have discovered the secret to such propulsion without any other scientists or physicists in private or university employ ever having envisioned these same technologies after all of these years.

MSH: No, it isn’t inconceivable at all. My guess is that a reasonable number of people (working within the controlled sphere where it’s happening) would know about the technology. If it was at the highest level of security, the burden of proof is on the other side to tell us WHY it would become known to others — or that it has not become known. So let’s play with this one. Let’s say the US developed UFOs after WWII and no one else did. They were able to protect this knowledge for a couple of decades but, as espionage would have it, the secret leaked out to the Russians. What would the Russians do?  Tell the world? Aside from the fact that they’d expose their access to us by doing so, what good would it do? How would they prove themselves trustworthy without compromising the intelligence apparatus that allowed them to gain such closely-guarded secrets? They’d probably want MORE information, like how to take that piece of knowledge and make it their own reality. They’d already be decades behind, and losing their intelligence conduit would mean getting no further. And if they developed one, by the time they did, we’d be a few models ahead. And if they did tell tje world at any point, it would just be denied.

Frankly, this isn’t a coherent objection because the ETH defenders would want to build part of their case on secret information about aliens escaping the screcy placed upon it.  But then that undermines this very argument — about others stumbling upon the technology.  It’s further shown to be weak by the simple counter-assertion that man-made UFO technology *has* broken out, but there is still uncertainty about whether it is man-made. This is actually where find ourselves. We have had a number of insiders come forward and say “I saw this and that technology and I think it might be alien, but I’m not sure.” Great. So the fact that the technology has become known or exposed can’t tell us the point of origin in any regard. Let me illustrate:

Statements:
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) but it can’t tell us if it’s alien.
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) and believe that it’s alien.
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) and believe that it is man-made.

Question: HOW do any of these statements actually solve the riddle?  They don’t. Piont: allowing for such disclosures don’t compel any position; you need an actual alien to make that case. Otherwise, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The UFOI argument is that it is unreasonable to think that such knowledge could be maintained with complete security forever. I agree — but how does that help or compel a conclusion? It doesn’t.

The rest of the UFOI post aims to convince us that it is a lie that the U.S. Government wants us to believe in ETs for some internal purpose. On what basis is the claim made? Well, the post pokes fun at some attempts to articulate that conspiracy, and that’s pretty much it. I’d poke fun at some of what I saw there, too. But that isn’t a compelling answer or rebuttal. What I want to see is the UFOI group systematically show, by virtue of a systematic critique of Joe Farrell’s work and W. A. Harbinson’s non-fiction work, that a group of scientists, mostly attached to Nazi scientific teams, lacked the knowledge, funding, and wherewithal to keep working on these ideas. I would suggest that they had all three, but that of course doesn’t prove the man-made view.  As I said at the end of my second post on all this:

Instead of taking the human answer off the table, given what we know human scientists were working on since the 1940s (questions, goals, and strategies for overcoming gravity or its effects), we ought to be seriously asking if they found solutions. The kinds of technologies that would produce these effects are *not* beyond the human MIND. That much is quite verifiable. The only question is whether they are still beyond human ACHIEVEMENT. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. But there is no reason at all to take the man-made view off the table. Since we know humans exist, and are not at all sure aliens actually exist, as things stand right now, I know which way Occam’s razor is cutting.

Technorati Tags: alien, extraterrestrial, government, Man-Made UFOs, military, Nazis, secrecy

Is the Idea of Man-Made UFOs a Myth? Part 2

A couple of weeks ago I posted Part 1 of my response to an essay on the UFO Iconoclast blog entitled, “The Myth of Man-Made Flying Saucers.” That essay listed seven operational and design characteristics of some UFOs that, for the essay writers, defied the notion that humans could be responsible for any technology behind them. These characteristics were:

* The ability to “morph” appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic
* “Changing state” by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as “engineered light” or plasma-like
* Seamlessly “splitting” from one craft into multiple craft – often creating formations
* Appearing in one part of the sky and – in a literal instant – appearing in a completely different part of the horizon
* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing “cat and mouse” with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history

In Part 1 I discussed the first four, explaining the logical disconnects with assuming such characteristics could not be explained in non-ET terms. In this post, I’ll breifly touch on the remainder:

* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing “cat and mouse” with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history

Some of what I said in Part 1 could apply to the first three of the remainder. In fact, everything listed here could be explained as tricks on the eye, the plasma technology suggestion offered by a commenter to Part 1, and “radar ghosting,” a known technique used by military and intelligence insiders who have sought to perptuate the belief in alien craft. This technique is discussed in Mark Pilkington’s recent book, Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs. But I want to add a few other thoughts about them.

First, if a “craft” moves with a tremendous speed to create a sonic boom but does not, that suggests the craft is either (a) not physical, or (b) manipulates the physical forces that would produce the sonic boom. The former argues against an ET craft in my view, at least if we define an ET as a life form subject to physical laws that govern a corporeal embodied being. That leaves the inter-dimensional option, which could dovetail with the second alternative above — the manipulation or defeat of certain physical forces. But does that point to ET?  Actually, no. It is epistemologically disingenuous to say it does. Why? Because that conclusion requires that we know with certainty that humans have never achieved a technology that could defeat or bend or “cancel” gravity so that speeds can be achieved for physical craft and there is no sonic boom (or a high degree of certainty — and suspicion is *not* certainty).

We do not have that certainty. As I noted in Part 1, several serious researchers have constructed a good circumstantial case that such technology has existed and does exist, and it is human. I speak here of Joseph Farrel and W.A. Harbinson’s work. (Note that Farrell’s research is not noted anywhere in the UFO Iconoclast essay). I could add Nick Cook’s work investigating anti-gravity and Thomas Valone.

Frankly, any scientist who does serious work in this area was not the first to think of the ideas, equations, problems, possibilities, and techniques that occupy their thoughts. They are standing on the shoulders of others. Some of those others are part of the historical record involving attempts to produce man-made saucers and similar craft back to at least the 1940s. The great unknown is whether or not this research proved successful within the secret operations of the military industrial complex. If it did, we would have our explanation. We just don’t know. But here is the critical point for the current discussion: WHY should this possibility be taken off the table — especially when its reality would account for the very things that supposedly cannot be explained by human efforts?  In other words, the UFO Iconoclast list for why UFOs cannot be man-made could be explained by man-made technology if the research we know to have existed in its infancy in the 1940s was pursued and became successful.  The list does not rule out humans. It invites the question of whether humans succeeded. There’s no coherent reason to conclude that the list makes the man-made option no longer worth considering.

Second, if “gravity overcoming” technlogy was achieved, the descripotions of the second and third items in the list would be expected and normal.  In other words, the description does not compel an alien source. Rather, it compels us to ask anew whether known human research was pursued to success.

Third, the last point is very weak. Even the modicum of aviation design reading I’ve done informs me that these sorts of items were known obstacles or weaknesses to the kinds of human “gravity overcoming” technology that was begun. Put another way, the humans working on this technological pursuit were well aware that new designs that largely eliminated these normal design features had to be re-designed. Further, both Farrell’s works and Harbinson Projeckt UFO discuss certain technologies that allowed air intake through the “skin” of craft. The point: these are known issues to the humans involved, and designs are literally on the books for these sorts of re-designs. The only question is whether they succeeded.

Bottom line: Instead of taking the human answer off the table, given what we know human scientists were working on since the 1940s (questions, goals, and strategies for overcoming gravity or its effects), the UFO Iconoclast list should pique our curiosity as to whether they found solutions. The kinds of technologies that would produce these effects are *not* beyond the human MIND. That much is quite verifiable. The only question is whether they are still beyond human ACHIEVEMENT.

In Part 3 I will revisit the original UFO Iconoclast post for more discussion.

Technorati Tags: aliens, flying saucers, Man-Made UFOs, physics, UFOs

Jerusalem UFO Hoax

For all of you who have emailed me (some breathlessly) about the UFO hovering over the Dome of the Rock a few days ago, I have three requests:

1) Watch this and learn a few things to look for to detect similar hoaxing in the future. The hoaxing techniques are clever, but easy to detect for people who know what to look for.

2) Instead of believing first and then engaging in critical thinking or analysis, reverse that process.  It will be good for both of us.

3) Don’t email me about any other UFO events until you spend a few days or a couple weeks doing #2.

Sorry, no Bible-UFO prophecies fulfilled today (or a couple days ago).

Honestly, it’s embarrassing how we simply can’t seem to suspend belief on these things long enough to pause and think, and to wait for people within the interested UFO community with video and graphic skills to do their thing. I don’t have those skills, but I’m blessed with a mind that doesn’t like gaps in coherence. My first thought was, why is it, that in this place — arguably the worst hot spot in the world — that (a) we don’t have a single mainstream news report of this and (b) we don’t have DOZENS of videos and stills for it? And before you say the mainstream media would cover it up, get real — they reported the O’Hare UFO, the recent Utah lights, and all the odd “vortexes” in Norway (just some examples). The mainstream may make light of it, but they WILL report something if enough people come forward with an event.  You can bet your gluteus maximus that a bright flash of light on the temple mount of all places would draw media attention. Or a riot. It’s a powder keg.

Technorati Tags: dome of the rock, Jerusalem, UFO

Addendum to My Previous Man-Made UFO Post

An alert reader (kudos to Keith) brought yet another alternative possibility to mind with respect to how a “shape shifting” UFO need not be alien technology. He cited the following from W. A. Harbinson’s important book, Projekt Saucer:

The fuselage of the experimental craft is covered with a plasma shell. As radar waves track the unknown craft from below, the waves are unable to “find” its true shape, shimmering and sliding over the plasma surface; and so the screen at the radar station receives indistinct, amorphous (and spectacular) blob-like impressions.

It’s been a while since I read Harbinson, so this was a welcome reminder.

And by the way, I hope I am not the only one who noticed that none of the evidence for fantastic human technology that could mimic the amazing behavior of saucers that Joseph Farrell has brought to light in his series of books on the subject was addressed in the UFO Iconoclasts post that asserted man-made UFOs were a myth. Until I see rebuttals of the documentation and the derivative hypotheses detailed by Dr. Farrell, I’m not going to be persuaded of alien origins.  If you have not read his books, you need to, as he is able to document powerful human technologies that, were they applied in the late 1940s, 50s, and 60s, would certainly explain much. And he builds a very good circumstantial case that this application could indeed have been funded and accomplished. Here are the titles to which I refer:

Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend

The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: Nasa’s Nazis, JFK, And Majic-12

Roswell and the Reich: The Nazi Connection

As with any other scholar, I can’t endorse everything Dr. Farrell writes or positions he holds. But anyone making any claims thereto who has not read his works and has not refuted his case should politely do both before opining. When combined with things like Harbinson suggests and ghost radar, we may be able to explain all of the fantastic flight phenomena through such works, leaving only the issue of alien bodies as the real point that needs resolution. And of course all we have on those is anecdotal (and some alternative hypotheses that involve humans).

Back to writing Part 2 now!

Technorati Tags: Farrell, Harbinson, man-made, physics, plasma, shape-shifting, technology, UFOs