Leslie Kean - UFOs

Because there is so much baggage associated with the term “UFO,” some scientists and other experts have employed a new terminology to separate serious studies from the more frivolous. Instead of “UFO,” some of our contributors have chosen to use “unidentified aerial phenomena” or “UAP,” which can be used in both the singular (for the phenomenon) and the plural. Richard Haines, former NASA senior scientist and aviation safety expert, defines UAP as:

The visual stimulus that produces a sighting report of an object or light seen in the sky, the appearance and/or flight dynamics of which do not suggest a logical, conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making both a full technical identification as well as a common-sense identification, if one is possible. [7] 7 “a common-sense identification, if one is possible” Richard Haines, Observing UFOs: An Investigative Handbook , (Nelson-Hall, 1980), chapter 2.

In the context of this book, the terms UFO and UAP mean essentially the same thing and will be used interchangeably, although some writers prefer to use one or the other exclusively. “UAP” suggests a broader scope, incorporating perhaps a wider range of phenomena, which, for example, may not appear to be a flying object. No matter which acronym is employed, the phenomenon is often motionless or hovering, not flying, and sometimes is simply seen as unusual lights rather than a solid object, especially at night when brilliant illumination overpowers the observation of any physical structure. “UAP” maintains the clarity that these unusual objects and lights may represent many types of phenomena originating from different sources.

A second fundamentally important point is that roughly 90 to 95 percent of UFO sightings can be explained. Within the remaining 5 to 10 percent, once an object has been determined to be a genuine UFO by the proper standards, then all we know is what it is not : something man-made or natural, or an outright hoax, of which there are unfortunately too many. Examples of phenomena sometimes mistaken for UFOs are weather balloons, flares, sky lanterns, planes flying in formation, secret military aircraft, birds reflecting the sun, planes reflecting the sun, blimps, helicopters, the planet Venus or Mars, meteors or meteorites, space junk, satellites, sundogs, ball lightning, ice crystals, reflected light off clouds, lights on the ground or lights reflected on a cockpit window, temperature inversions, hole-punch clouds, and the list goes on! Yes, the vast majority of reports can usually be explained by one of the above, but of course it’s only the ones that can’t that we’re interested in.

It follows, therefore, that the often asked question “Do you believe in UFOs?” is actually baseless, but it’s frequently asked and creates endless problems in communication. It really doesn’t make sense, because we know that unidentified objects exist, officially documented and defined as such by the U.S. Air Force and other government bodies around the world. For over fifty years, the reality of unidentified flying objects has not been a question of belief or a matter of faith, opinion, or choice. Rather, when using the correct definition of UFO, it is a matter of fact . Like conventional identified objects—such as aircraft, missiles, and other types of man-made equipment—these unidentifieds can also be photographed, create radar returns, leave marks on the ground, and be observed and described by multiple independent witnesses at separate locations. In terms of belief, the questioner is really asking, “Do you believe in alien spaceships?” That is an entirely different question.

To approach UFOs rationally, we must maintain the agnostic position regarding their nature or origin, because we simply don’t know the answers yet. By being agnostics, we are taking a giant step forward. So often, the UFO debate fuels two polarities, both representing untenable positions. On one side, the “believers” proclaim that extraterrestrials have arrived from outer space and that we already know that UFOs are alien vehicles, and on the other, the “debunkers” argue with aggressive defensiveness that UFOs don’t exist at all. This counterproductive battle has unfortunately dominated public discourse for a long time, only heightening confusion and creating more distance from the scientific—the agnostic—approach.

Principled skepticism is the foundational premise of this book. Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, former science editor for The Astrophysical Journal and The Journal of Scientific Exploration , defines a true skeptic as “one who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.” I invite you to look at the material presented here from the perspective of an agnostic—objectively, with an open and truly skeptical mind.

Now we can begin a fascinating journey. I will present some of the most powerful material that so profoundly impacted me during my own process of exploration and discovery. During that process, the other writers and I ask the reader to consider the veracity of the following points, to be revisited at the end of book, which I have distilled from my ten years of looking into the UFO subject. These five premises are thoroughly evaluated and illustrated by the evidence throughout the volume:

(1) There exists in our skies, worldwide, a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology.

(2) UFO incursions, often in restricted airspace, can cause aviation safety hazards and raise national security concerns, even though the objects have not demonstrated overtly hostile acts.

(3) The U.S. government routinely ignores UFOs and, when pressed, issues false explanations. Its indifference and/or dismissals are irresponsible, disrespectful to credible, often expert witnesses, and potentially dangerous.

(4) The hypothesis that UFOs are of extraterrestrial or interdimensional origin is a rational one and must be taken into account, given the data we have. However, the actual origin and nature of UFOs have not yet been determined by scientists, and remain unknown.

(5) Given its potential implications, the evidence calls for systematic scientific investigation involving U.S. government support and international cooperation.

I believe that after reading this book, the discerning reader will accept—or at least acknowledge as plausible—these five positions, as remarkable or even inconceivable as they seemed at the outset.

Leslie Kean

New York City

We begin this exploration on very solid ground, with a Major General’s firsthand chronicle of one of the most vivid and well-documented UFO cases ever. What you are about to read will demonstrate the dramatic, and very mysterious, physicality of UFOs—in this case, ones that were unusually bold. Although parts may sound like science fiction, they are not. The fact is that silent gliding or hovering objects, usually triangular, were seen by thousands of people and investigated by university scientists and government officials, yet they could never be explained. They left imprints on film, and although virtually impossible to detect on radar, they triggered the launching of Air Force F-16s in anxious pursuit. The sightings occurred in a more than two-year “wave” over Belgium, beginning in late 1989.