From: Giuliano Marinkovic <giuliano.marinkovic.nul>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 18:52:06 +0200
Archived: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:11:25 -0400
Subject: Leslie Kean Counters James Oberg


Source: MSNBC.Com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38977500/

9/7/2010


Skeptic Misses Point Behind UFO Book
Solid sightings cited in 'UFOs'; serious investigation needed

By Leslie Kean

When I wrote my book about officially documented UFO reports, I
fully expected the skeptics to react. That's why I was careful
to focus only on the very best evidence from the most credible
sources in "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go
on the Record". Since 95 percent of all sightings are eventually
identified, the book is concerned only with the remaining 5
percent - those UFO events that have been thoroughly
investigated, involve multiple witnesses and ample data, but
still cannot be explained.

That didn't stop James Oberg, a space analyst for NBC News, from
complaining that the book was based on a "questionable
foundation". In the biographical note appended to his
commentary, he notes that he spent 22 years at NASA's Mission
Control and has written books about space policy and
exploration. But he neglects to inform readers of something UFO
researchers already know all too well: that he is a founding
fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly
CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other
unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of
thinking.

For many years, Oberg, while retaining his stance as an
objective student of the UFO phenomenon, has been a consistently
vocal skeptic. His long list of articles dealing with UFOs date
from the 1970s and are posted on his website under the heading
"space folklore", which accurately sums up his attitude towards
the subject. He may be qualified to serve as an unbiased, expert
consultant on Russian or Chinese missile systems, but not on
UFOs. His objection to my many varied cases has to do with his
notion that pilots are poor observers. To buttress this idea, he
quotes J. Allen Hynek referring to questionable statistics
compiled in the 1960s by Project Blue Book. He also cites
Russian researchers describing two events in 1982 when pilot
sightings were accurately identified as "military balloons"
after the fact.

This is not surprising, since the vast majority of sightings can
be explained, and this kind of identification is made all the
time. However, such solved sightings - whether made by pilots or
anyone else - have absolutely nothing to do with the cases
presented in my book. I wonder if Oberg gave "UFOs" a careful
read. He spent many paragraphs quoting me concerning a report on
aviation cases by French researcher Dominique Weinstein. The
problem is, those are not my quotes. The chapter from which he
extracted them was written by Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of the
French government's UFO agency for over 20 years, as is obvious
in his byline and narrative about French research.

Oberg gleefully proclaims that I have "faithfully vouched for"
the cases in Weinstein's list, but actually, I have respectfully
allowed Velasco to write his own chapter. (About half the
chapters in my book were written by highly credentialed
authorities and expert witnesses.) If Oberg wants to discuss the
Weinstein study, he'll have to contact Velasco.

Oberg's fixation on the question of the reliability of pilots as
witnesses is not raised by the Generals and aviation experts I
have interviewed - officials who have studied pilot cases and
interviewed pilot witnesses for decades. As described in "UFOs",
French Air Force Maj. Gen. Denis Letty initiated an extensive
study of UFO data because competent pilots he knew personally
were confronted by the phenomenon. Chilean Gen. Ricardo Bermudez
was instrumental in the founding of his country's official UFO
investigative agency in 1997 because of inexplicable sightings
involving pilots.

Richard Haines, who has written more than 70 papers in leading
scientific journals and published more than 25 U.S. government
reports for NASA, was formerly chief of the space agency's Space
Human Factors Office and served for 21 years as a retired senior
aerospace scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center. Having
studied pilot sightings and related aviation safety issues for
more than 30 years, and having personally interviewed hundreds
of pilots during that time, Haines has concluded that pilots are
indeed excellent witnesses, given their thorough training,
expertise and hours of flying time.

Haines is now chief scientist for the National Aviation
Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. Sadly, most pilots
never report their sightings, as he points out in "UFOs".

Most importantly, the aerial cases documented in "UFOs" - and
many more on the record elsewhere - involve multiple factors
such as:

. Sightings of long duration, allowing for accurate voice
transmissions and the refinement of the initial identification.

. Multiple witnesses - co-pilot, crew, passengers, other
aircraft in different locations, and occasionally observers from
the ground.

. Onboard radar and ground radar recording the presence of a
physical object, often corresponding exactly to the visual
sighting.

. Direct physical effects on the aircraft, such as equipment
malfunction.

As an example, Brig. Gen. Jose Periera of Brazil, commander of
air force operations until 2005, reports on an "array of UFOs"
observed over his country in 1986. Two pilots chased one of the
objects for 30 minutes. Numerous other pilots saw the objects.
Radar recorded them. Six jets were scrambled from two Brazilian
air force bases to pursue them. Some of the pilots made visual
contact corresponding to radar registrations. Both military and
commercial pilots were involved. Onboard as well as ground radar
systems confirmed the presence of the objects.

"We have the correlation of independent readings from different
sources," Periera writes. "These data have nothing to do with
human eyes. When, along with the radar, a pilot's pair of eyes
sees that same thing, and then another pilot's, and so on, the
incident has real credibility and stands on a solid foundation."

In 2007, airline captain Ray Bowyer saw two gigantic, bright
yellow objects suspended over the English Channel, which he
observed carefully for 15 minutes. His passengers saw them,
another pilot on a second aircraft was also a witness, and an
object was registered on radar. In 1986, three Japan Airlines
pilots watched a series of UFOs for 30 minutes, communicating
with air traffic control while radar operators picked up the
objects in corresponding locations.

I could go on with many more examples, presented in detail in
the book. Oberg says pilots may misinterpret visual phenomena
when forced to make a split-second diagnosis before taking
immediate action - very rare cases, I would assume - and no one
would disagree with that. But, just as was the case with the
solved Russian sightings I discussed earlier, this is entirely
beside the point with respect to my book, because the cases
presented do not involve such a scenario.

In addition, "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go
on the Record" presents many other cases that do not involve
pilots at all - but often military personnel and police officers
- including:

. The famous 1980 incident near RAF Bentwaters in Britain,
involving the landing of a UFO and objects sending beams of
light to the ground.

. The 1981 "Trans-en-Provence" landing case in France,
investigated by the official French agency GEPAN. . Belgian Maj.
Gen. Wilfried De Brouwer's report on the wave of sightings in
Belgium in 1989-90, which includes a spectacular photograph.

. The 1993 "Cosford Incident" involving a UFO over two Air Force
bases in Britain, investigated by the Ministry of Defense.

. The 1997 Phoenix Lights incident that former Arizona Gov. Fife
Symington described.

These are just a few of a host of cases with abundant data that
don't rely on pilot observations - and which are still unsolved.
It's the aggregate of cases, the accumulation of evidence and
the long-running but unsuccessful attempts of qualified experts
to resolve them that establishes the reality of a yet-
unexplained physical phenomenon with extraordinary capabilities.
Oberg says that "if investigators are unable to find the
explanation for a particular UFO case, that doesn't constitute
proof that the case is unexplainable". Fair enough. Perhaps
there is some prosaic explanation still to be discovered.
There's always that possibility, no matter how small. But we
remain in a state of ignorance concerning UFOs, leaving us with
the conclusion presented in the book: We need a systematic,
scientific investigation of the skies that actively looks for
these mysterious and elusive objects. In the meantime, all I
ask is that devout skeptics like Oberg read the entire book
before raising objections that actually have no bearing on the
matter at hand.

---

Investigative journalist Leslie Kean is the author of the New
York Times bestseller "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government
Officials Go on the Record" (Harmony/Crown). Her work has
appeared in many publications including The Nation,
International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe. She is also
the co-author of "Burma's Revolution of the Spirit" and co-
founder of the Coalition for Freedom of Information.


C 2010 MSNBC Interactive. Reprints



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.