Leslie Kean Media

[Randall]

LK's book is obviously pitched at the curious professional who is unaware of the best evidence.

On an intuitional level I want to like Leslie. I just wish she wouldn't throw ufology under the bus. Eroding ufology and confusing UFOs with UAPs isn't what we need. Still, she still has time to align herself with responsible ufology, and she doesn't have to abandon NARCAP's entire agenda to do that. In fact, USI has adopted NARCAP's term "UAP" in the context it was meant to be used, which is for more vague and unusual objects that don't appear to be some sort of alien craft ( UFO ).

 

[uforadio]

Dutch mainstream investigative TV show "Brandpunt" devotes 17 minutes to UFOs and Leslie Kean's book. You can watch 17-minute reportage here:

 

[Randall]

There goes Leslie promoting her European ( what is that German? ) edition. Actually, Leslie's understanding of the word "UFO" ( Time 3:48 ) is a misconception made by those who haven't taken the time to study the origin and evolution of the word. For a detailed word history see this link. In short there is more than ample evidence to support the conclusion that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, and doesn't simply mean the literal interpretation of the words that form the acronym ( as she would have us believe ).

Why does she do this? Despite her potential, Kean's agenda is aligned with the anti-ufology stance NARCAP took on in recent years, and as a consequence does everything she can to downplay alien visitation. That behavior clearly suggest that she's afraid of the so-called giggle factor ( mentioned in passing at time 0:49 ). She seems to be overly concerned about how the giggle factor might affect her credibility as a journalist, and by extension, her book sales ( a copy of which I own BTW ). Come on Leslie, your book is an international best seller. It's time to come out of the closet and admit you believe alien visitation is real and that it's what we're really dealing with!

 

[Ted Roe]

I have seen a few comments on this thread about NARCAP and anti-ufology and I would like to take a moment to clarify. Those of us that are adhering to scientific standards in our research can not confidently determine if a UAP is an extraterrestrial spacecraft. Most of the time it isn't detected on radar and there is no means of determining where it came from or where it went thus we can't say it came from space. We adopted the term UAP because it reflects the results of analysis by qualified individuals and remains unknown. It might be a UAP/light or a UAP/Object or UAP/UFO. We felt the UFO term was to narrow as many observations involve lights and it is not accurately applied by many in ufology and the general public. The several official efforts in the world use some variation of the UAP acronym and it leaves room for a variety of explanations for a scope of UAP profiles.
The issue of some UAP representing extraterrestrial incursions can not be discounted, and most of the official teams and efforts of merit have gone on record in some fashion to make this clear. NARCAP is no different in this regard. Given that it is not as easy as it sounds to prove attributes of intelligence in the behavior of a ball of light it is reasonable to work with the data and let commonalities or trends make themselves apparent. For example, are orange balls of light manifesting as "earthlights" the same thing that pilots report at altitude? How can we tell? Do balls of light mask objects? How can we tell? and so on...
Of course, we part ways with those who would stand on a podium and declare that there is an alien presence and its a good thing. This is reckless. Any claims should be able to stand up to rigorous examination and so far they don't.
UFOlogy is a social paradigm reflecting various beliefs about UFOs and the ETH. That is not the same as simply engaging the data and not extrapolating it unreasonably. By doing so we have learned that UAP probably represent several different things including poorly documented natural phenomena. If we know that the data sets imply several sources then we have to do the work to define the profiles clearly. Then we can sort the profiles further and actually develop info that is accurate and dependable.
Simply doing what has been done for 60 years isn't going to resolve the situation. Listening to channelers and "exopolitics" activists, New Agers, and various "researchers" whose attention to scientific rigor is suspect hasn't helped at all. The only way out is through.
In the same way we ignore those who say it isn't happening or that it can't happen. Personally, I hope they are right but the odds are not in their favor given the history of invalidation and directly ignoring the potentials as well as my own experience. There is no way to be sure that et incursions haven't happened or aren't happening in the modern era. This is a simple truth for a host of reasons. We should be vigilant, again, for a host of reasons. Given the probable toxicity of an ET presence we can't afford to be wrong or operating on misinformation. So the actual work has to be done.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thanks for the follow up Ted. I think it's time we have you on The Paracast to flesh this out and talk about important cases and such. I'll contact you privately about this.

 

[Burnt State]

Thanks for the follow up Ted. I think it's time we have you on The Paracast to flesh this out and talk about important cases and such. I'll contact you privately about this.

Well he sounds coherent, clear and focussed. Given the recent string of great episodes that have placed some good emphasis on thoughtful inquiry, Ted sounds like he would be excellent. Maybe invite ufology as a 'forum member challenges guest' episode and you've got a real cooker.

 

[Ted Roe]

Sure, happy to participate.

 

[Randall]

I have seen a few comments on this thread about NARCAP and anti-ufology and I would like to take a moment to clarify. Those of us that are adhering to scientific standards in our research can not confidently determine if a UAP is an extraterrestrial spacecraft ...

As mentioned elsewhere already numerous times in other threads and discussions, alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial, so it would be advisable to stop interjecting with that particular objection because the fallout is that it reduces the debate about the origin of UFOs to ET versus Earth, as the only two possibilities, and sidesteps the real issue which is alien versus non-alien. Most ( including me ) would agree that we don't have sufficient evidence ( at least in the public realm ) to conclude that the ETH is true. However it should become abundantly clear to any intelligent person who makes themselves familiar with the subject matter, that it's reasonable to conclude that alien visitation is a reality. The challenge is to find out where they come from, what they've been doing here, and if they have any particular agenda.

 

[Ted Roe]

As mentioned elsewhere already numerous times in other threads and discussions, alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial, so it would be advisable to stop interjecting with that particular objection because the fallout is that it reduces the debate about the origin of UFOs to ET versus Earth, as the only two possibilities, and sidesteps the real issue which is alien versus non-alien. Most ( including me ) would agree that we don't have sufficient evidence ( at least in the public realm ) to conclude that the ETH is true. However it should become abundantly clear to any intelligent person who makes themselves familiar with the subject matter, that it's reasonable to conclude that alien visitation is a reality. The challenge is to find out where they come from, what they've been doing here, and if they have any particular agenda.

That is an unfounded conclusion, an assumption, until you do the work and publish it. It is not defensible as science. Yes there are provocative cases but assumptions lead to misunderstandings and if it really is an ET incursion then there may be little room for misunderstandings... build the data on solid foundations, sort the data, challenge it and yourself, and live with whatever true knowledge arises. Say "I don't know" when you really don't...expect nothing, be ready for anything.

 

[Randall]

That is an unfounded conclusion, an assumption, until you do the work and publish it. It is not defensible as science. Yes there are provocative
but assumptions lead to misunderstandings and if it really is an ET incursion then there may be little room for misunderstandings... build the data on solid foundations, sort the data, challenge it and yourself, and live with whatever true knowledge arises. Say "I don't know" when you really don't...expect nothing, be ready for anything.

What exactly are you referring to as unfounded; the difference in meaning between the words "extraterrestrial" and "alien"? Or that it's reasonable to conclude that alien visitation is a reality? In either case the word "assumption" doesn't apply.

The word alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial. Although alien is suggestive of extraterrestrial, it may be the case that UFOS ( alien craft ) come from some as of yet undiscovered Earthly civilization beyond the boundaries and constructs of our own, and that would still qualify them as alien. Or perhaps they come from an alternate reality. Technically that would also make them ET, but not in the usual context ( outer space ).

Saying that it should become abundantly clear to any intelligent person who makes themselves familiar with the subject matter, that it's reasonable to conclude that alien visitation is a reality, isn't an assumption either. It's an opinion, and well substantiated one based on the experiences of the many people who have had UFO experiences, along with the various incidental evidence such as radar reports, trace evidence, medical evidence, and psychological evidence.

 

[Ted Roe]

What exactly are you referring to as unfounded; the difference in meaning between the words "extraterrestrial" and "alien"? Or that it's reasonable to conclude that alien visitation is a reality? In either case the word "assumption" doesn't apply.

The word alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial. Although alien is suggestive of extraterrestrial, it may be the case that UFOS ( alien craft ) come from some as of yet undiscovered Earthly civilization beyond the boundaries and constructs of our own, and that would still qualify them as alien. Or perhaps they come from an alternate reality. Technically that would also make them ET, but not in the usual context ( outer space ).

Saying that it should become abundantly clear to any intelligent person who makes themselves familiar with the subject matter, that it's reasonable to conclude that alien visitation is a reality, isn't an assumption either. It's an opinion, and well substantiated one based on the experiences of the many people who have had UFO experiences, along with the various incidental evidence such as radar reports, trace evidence, medical evidence, and psychological evidence.

You may make all the assumptions you like and offer all the opinions you have but without a solid foundation of data and a powerful combination of logic and inquiry and peer-reviewed publication, its not science or factual or defensible. Take it into environments where your image is at risk and try to persuade those who have influence to engage you honestly and trust your influence on their image. See how far it takes you. A certain former astronaut that was involved with a certain project that NARCAP was also found himself removed from meetings because he was too far left of center for his audience.... took some damage control to get it all back on track.
I didn't make the rules around credibility and protecting our work and our project, I just understand them. I could care less about influencing Ufology. My mission involves influencing the aviation community, the science community, and promoting the general issue of UAP, science and safety amongst leaders here in the US and abroad. They are not true believers. I have to justify every step and make new inroads into places Ufology has never been and never will get to. Try playing to that crowd with your unfounded "alien space ship" opinions....
Further, I have no apologies for not going on TV and making ridiculous comments and claims and supporting pure nonsense though that seems to bother you...

Better to let the data build, present it accurately, avoid extrapolation and let the facts develop. We all have opinions about this but that isn't going to help us deal with the real thing if its happening. What we need are facts, and we need to know when we don't know, so we can respond appropriately if we detect a suspected incursion. Everyone involved in bona fide UAP research should be aware of the possibilities regarding ET incursions though it is no help at all to operate on unfounded opinions or to act like UAP are already defined and resolved when they are not.

 

[Randall]

You may make all the assumptions you like and offer all the opinions you have but without a solid foundation of data and a powerful combination of logic and inquiry and peer-reviewed publication, its not science or factual or defensible.

Academic elitism doesn't necessarily make an evaluation any more accurate. When it comes to UFOs, I place more value on the opinions of a well informed ufologist than I do on a scientist with no ufology background. One example of a major scientific blunder is Edward Condon, a scientist with impeccable credentials who, like NARCAP, didn't take the idea of alien visitation seriously, and had next to no background or experience in ufology. At least NARCAP seems to have some appreciation for the reality of the phenomenon. It's just in a state of denial about what a certain portion of it really is.

Take it into environments where your image is at risk and try to persuade those who have influence to engage you honestly and trust your influence on their image. See how far it takes you. A certain former astronaut that was involved with a certain project that NARCAP was also found himself removed from meetings because he was too far left of center for his audience.... took some damage control to get it all back on track.
I didn't make the rules around credibility and protecting our work and our project, I just understand them. I could care less about influencing Ufology. My mission involves influencing the aviation community, the science community, and promoting the general issue of UAP, science and safety amongst leaders here in the US and abroad. They are not true believers. I have to justify every step and make new inroads into places Ufology has never been and never will get to. Try playing to that crowd with your unfounded "alien space ship" opinions....
Further, I have no apologies for not going on TV and making ridiculous comments and claims and supporting pure nonsense though that seems to bother you...

I think you're making a few assumptions there. It's not that I don't understand your challenges. It's just that I don't see them as a top priority. You care about raising money to travel around to attend in-person meetings with foreign political figures and others whom you think are important in order to convince somebody ( the world, the scientists, yourself, I don't know ), to take the subject seriously. Meanwhile, what the firsthand witnesses who don't the need politicians, or scientists, or NARCAP, or even me for that matter to validate the reality of alien visitation are getting from NARCAP is: "Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft. We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences. NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment."

Better to let the data build, present it accurately, avoid extrapolation and let the facts develop. We all have opinions about this but that isn't going to help us deal with the real thing if its happening. What we need are facts, and we need to know when we don't know, so we can respond appropriately if we detect a suspected incursion. Everyone involved in bona fide UAP research should be aware of the possibilities regarding ET incursions though it is no help at all to operate on unfounded opinions or to act like UAP are already defined and resolved when they are not.

You want the facts? The fact is that the question of alien visitation is already over for all those who are willing to evaluate the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. As for what UAPs are, good luck with that. I suppose there could be natural non-UFO related phenomena that are relevant to your studies, and all the best figuring out how non-UFO related phenomena ( UAPs ) affect aviation safety, but those aren't my concern.

My concern is how NARCAP uses ufology to further it's own agenda while undermining it behind the scenes. Ufology as a whole; as a field of study that encompasses the full range of subject matter connected with the UFO phenomenon can and should be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean that all the subsections of ufology studies ( e.g. UFO Religions > The Raëlians ) should be believed and taken seriously, yet it seems that NARCAP's PR campaign would throw the entire field into the same trash can, and that simply isn't fair.

 

[Ted Roe]

Academic elitism doesn't necessarily make an evaluation any more accurate. When it comes to UFOs, I place more value on the opinions of a well informed ufologist than I do on a scientist with no ufology background. One example of a major scientific blunder is Edward Condon, a scientist with impeccable credentials who, like NARCAP, didn't take the idea of alien visitation seriously, and had next to no background or experience in ufology. At least NARCAP seems to have some appreciation for the reality of the phenomenon. It's just in a state of denial about what a certain portion of it really is.

I think you're making a few assumptions there. It's not that I don't understand your challenges. It's just that I don't see them as a top priority. You care about raising money to travel around to attend in-person meetings with foreign political figures and others whom you think are important in order to convince somebody ( the world, the scientists, yourself, I don't know ), to take the subject seriously. Meanwhile, what the firsthand witnesses who don't the need politicians, or scientists, or NARCAP, or even me for that matter to validate the reality of alien visitation are getting from NARCAP is: "Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien spacecraft. We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences. NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment."

You want the facts? The fact is that the question of alien visitation is already over for all those who are willing to evaluate the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. As for what UAPs are, good luck with that. I suppose there could be natural non-UFO related phenomena that are relevant to your studies, and all the best figuring out how non-UFO related phenomena ( UAPs ) affect aviation safety, but those aren't my concern.

My concern is how NARCAP uses ufology to further it's own agenda while undermining it behind the scenes. Ufology as a whole; as a field of study that encompasses the full range of subject matter connected with the UFO phenomenon can and should be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean that all the subsections of ufology studies ( e.g. UFO Religions > The Raëlians ) should be believed and taken seriously, yet it seems that NARCAP's PR campaign would throw the entire field into the same trash can, and that simply isn't fair.

You seem to think that our media policy, as described on our Media page, is directed at UFO experiencers, you and UFOlogy in general and have attacked me several times over it. It is obviously directed at media inquiries and I think that you are intentionally trying to make something out of nothing.
Again, we do not consider UAP, UFO or the idea of alien incursions to be entertainment. We take it very seriously and warn production companies in advance that we will not be participating in shows that treat it like entertainment, offering fanciful graphics, suggesting ridiculous and unfounded theories, etc..
Its on our media page and you treat it like a personal insult against you and "Ufology" whatever that is...
Further , we HAVE done shows when the subject was reasonably presented. National Geographic, History Channel, NHK, and others have gained our participation with the understanding as presented on our website that you are so fond of quoting....
You can believe all you want but facts carry the day. Build the facts and do the work.
How is NARCAP using "Ufology" for its own agenda? You really think that we are like Basset and Greer and others who absolutely abuse the work of others including NARCAP to further their own agendas? We want nothing to do with any of that nonsense and they certainly are not offering any information or materials that we would want to promote, much less pirate.
The fact is that some of the best minds in the study are involved with our effort specifically because our conservative approach sets a solid foundation for establishing the reality of UAP and forcing an examination of the subject by science and officialdom that may reveal some aspect of the ETH. Its a lot stronger approach than pushing your own opinions and demanding the reaction you want with no support for your position.

I think you are making a lot of noise about something you don't understand. The difference between activism and research and how best to conduct both in this environment. We conduct activism conservatively and outside of the realms of Ufology. We don't support demands that the gov reveal what it knows. I don't think it knows much.We have advisors on staff like Dr. Jacques Vallee and others who have extensive experience in dealing with the subject inside of gov circles. I rely on our advisors to help Dr. Haines and I guide our group, set our standards, deal with media and administrate our team... There are hundreds of years of combined experience between our staff in dealing with this issue and I tap it often to guide our team and set our image.
As you well know, I reached out to your website because I thought I saw "serious ufology" as you call it, and its such a rare thing these days. I think that your effort is close but not close enough at present to meet our standards mainly because of your public stance on your beliefs. We have done the opposite and toned our beliefs down while building a solid body of our own work and presenting solid data and analysis(3400 cases in AIRCAT and supporting research)
So your claim that we are elitist, aloof, dismissive of the ETH and "using Ufology" doesn't hold water...
Further, I have imbedded responses to a number of your attacks that you have not engaged....

 

[Ted Roe]

Ufology - Here is an example of a poorly documented, very dangerous, natural phenomena that presents as a round ball of light and is probably responsible for UFO and UAP reports. It will not get out of the way of an aircraft because its not alien tech with a will to survive. It can evaporate an airliner.

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
How many other kinds of luminous phenomena are out there and how do we resolve them against the belief in the ETH, clear the UFO/UAP databases, protect aviation, and maintain credibility?
2. How do you adjust Ufology knowing that not all UAP are alien devices? Do you say, "well, some UAP are alien devices" and continue blathering or do you want to know your facts and have some position on the potential that UAP can arise from natural sources, have probably several profiles, and are going to require a thorough research arc to help clear the databases of cases that are resolved as poorly documented natural phenomena?
3. What do you tell the aviation community and how do you get them to listen to you? What happens when you promote aliens and somebody comes back with "It could be Extreme Ball Lightning"?

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
Dr. VanDevender is a Senior Member of the IEEE and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

VanDevender does not consider ball lightning as "just entertainment." He has launched into what he calls "High Risk Research at the Boundary of Denial and Superstition." His interest focuses on "Extreme Ball Lightning." The term "extreme" distinguishes it from ordinary ball lightning, which lasts less than 10 seconds and is benign. Ordinary ball lightning is probably "normal plasma." It is the kind of ball lightning produced in the laboratory. It spontaneously appears in the open-air, closed rooms, aircraft at altitude, and was seen in at least one submarine. It appears before, during or after lightning. About 5% are seen in clear weather.

However, VanDevender distinguished extreme ball lightning (EBL) by the following characteristics:
• it glows in air;
• it originates from nothing visible;
• it lasts between 10 and 1200 seconds;
• it floats at about 1 meter/second;
• it is lethal or potentially lethal;
• it causes significant damage;
• it contains energy estimated at 100,000 to 1 billion Joules, far in excess of the energy density attributable to chemicals or electrostatics;
• it penetrates walls, glass and metal, generally without leaving a hole;
• it induces large currents but is in radial force equilibrium;
• it leaves black streaks on corpses without the spasm of electrocution;
• it can excavate tons of earth.

An EBL in County Donegal, Ireland, on August 6, 1868 travelled about 1.6 km and excavated ~200 cubic meters of water saturated peat in ~ 1200 second. VanDevender followed up a reputable report by Michael Fitzgerald to the Royal Society with a visit to the site. He confirmed the essentials, insofar as it was possible so long after the event. It was evident that the conductive peat would immediately neutralize any charge, so EBL cannot be electrostatic.

 

[Randall]

How many other kinds of luminous phenomena are out there and how do we resolve them against the belief in the ETH, clear the UFO/UAP databases, protect aviation, and maintain credibility?

I don't know. I wish you all the success in the world finding out.

2. How do you adjust Ufology knowing that not all UAP are alien devices. Do you say, well, some UAP are alien devices and continue blathering or do you want to know your facts and have some position on the potential that UAP can arise from natural sources, have probably several profiles, and are going to require a thorough research arc to help clear the databases of cases that are resolved as poorly documented natural phenomena

What we can say is that the evidence based rationale for defining the word UFO as "alien craft" is overwhelming, and that it's reasonable for any intelligent person who studies the subject matter thoroughly to conclude that UFOs are real, and therefore the issue of alien visitation is settled with reasonable certainty. What we cannot say with absolute certainty is what each and every individual case represents to an investigator who studies it after the fact.

3. What do you tell the aviation community and how do you get them to listen to you. What happens when you promote aliens and somebody comes back with "It could be Extreme Ball Lightning"?

I think there are probably UFO witnesses in the aviation community who have no doubt that what they observed was an alien craft, not something natural, vague or unidentified, and those people don't deserve to be told that the idea of alien visitation is merely entertainment.

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
Dr. VanDevender is a Senior Member of the IEEE and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

VanDevender does not consider ball lightning as "just entertainment." He has launched into what he calls "High Risk Research at the Boundary of Denial and Superstition." His interest focuses on "Extreme Ball Lightning." The term "extreme" distinguishes it from ordinary ball lightning, which lasts less than 10 seconds and is benign. Ordinary ball lightning is probably "normal plasma." It is the kind of ball lightning produced in the laboratory. It spontaneously appears in the open-air, closed rooms, aircraft at altitude, and was seen in at least one submarine. It appears before, during or after lightning. About 5% are seen in clear weather.

However, VanDevender distinguished extreme ball lightning (EBL) by the following characteristics:
• it glows in air;
• it originates from nothing visible;
• it lasts between 10 and 1200 seconds;
• it floats at about 1 meter/second;
• it is lethal or potentially lethal;
• it causes significant damage;
• it contains energy estimated at 100,000 to 1 billion Joules, far in excess of the energy density attributable to chemicals or electrostatics;
• it penetrates walls, glass and metal, generally without leaving a hole;
• it induces large currents but is in radial force equilibrium;
• it leaves black streaks on corpses without the spasm of electrocution;
• it can excavate tons of earth.

An EBL in County Donegal, Ireland, on August 6, 1868 travelled about 1.6 km and excavated ~200 cubic meters of water saturated peat in ~ 1200 second. VanDevender followed up a reputable report by Michael Fitzgerald to the Royal Society with a visit to the site. He confirmed the essentials, insofar as it was possible so long after the event. It was evident that the conductive peat would immediately neutralize any charge, so EBL cannot be electrostatic.

Interesting. Given the number of reports of ball lightning, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's a real phenomena and probably natural, but it's not the same as seeing a UFO off your starboard wing ( or anyplace else for that matter ). So to answer your question ( how do you respond? ), you respond by focusing on those aspects of such a report that would differentiate ball lightning from a UFO. Did it behave as if under intelligent control? How long did it last? What was the weather like at the time? Was any sort of airframe or superstructure visible at any time? If it all adds up to ball lightning, then maybe that's what it was, so you certainly wouldn't call it a UFO. I'd probably class it as a rare natural atmospheric phenomenon, possibly ball lightning, and move along to the next case.

 

[Ted Roe]

I think there are probably UFO witnesses in the aviation community who have no doubt that what they observed was an alien craft, not something natural, vague or unidentified, and those people don't deserve to be told that the idea of alien visitation is merely entertainment.

Maybe there are witnesses who BELIEVE they observed an alien craft. Further, many describe balls of light as craft and as having attributes of intelligence and believe they are not natural. But some of them are.....Its your opinion that there are probably witnesses in the aviation community who have no doubt..... What do you really know? Honestly, what do you really know? How willing are you to risk all of us for the sake of what you know? A lot of people think they saw God, or a host of other things, in India they watch for the floating city of Hanuman, the monkey god and they see it..... How do we resolve your opinions and beliefs with what is really happening? Research and study from a conservative and objective perspective.

Again with the "alien visitation is merely entertainment" nonsense. I have repeatedly reminded you that you are quoting from our media page as we advise production companies what our position is. Are you so in love with drama that you can't except that and want to make it about you, UFO experiencers and Ufology? How many times do I need to say that we take it all very seriously and have no interest in talking nonsense, opinions, rumors, etc.

In fact, it seems to me that anyone who truly takes this seriously will readily admit what they don't know and will be very conservative about pushing their opinions around given that the subject involves the security of everything we know....

Interesting. Given the number of reports of ball lightning, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's a real phenomena and probably natural, but it's not the same as seeing a UFO off your starboard wing ( or anyplace else for that matter ). So to answer your question ( how do you respond? ), you respond by focusing on those aspects of such a report that would differentiate ball lightning from a UFO. Did it behave as if under intelligent control? How long did it last? What was the weather like at the time? Was any sort of airframe or superstructure visible at any time? If it all adds up to ball lightning, then maybe that's what it was, so you certainly wouldn't call it a UFO. I'd probably class it as a rare natural atmospheric phenomenon, possibly ball lightning, and move along to the next case.[/QUOTE]

So how do you resolve that it was ball lightning if it engaged multiple trajectories, paced the aircraft, changed velocities, and lasted for 45min before leaving the vicinity and disappearing from view, etc... like some reports tell us? Are they ET artifacts? How can you tell?
Earthlight studies reflect certain profiles including orange, red and green balls of light. Are they the same orange, red and green balls of light that pilots report at altitude? How can you tell?
Are they ET artifacts? How can you tell?
The UK Condign study suggested that ALL UAP are plasma phenomena including those which appear as solids. How do you credibly refute that without doing research and analysis? Or do you just declare your truths as fact because you believe that your logic is based on all the facts and is an accurate representation of reality?

 

[Randall]

... Maybe there are witnesses who BELIEVE they observed an alien craft ...

And maybe their reasons for believing they saw an alien craft would be good enough for a lot of other people if they had also seen it, and given the number of people who claim to have had such experiences, I don't think it's reasonable to think that they're all either lying or so incompetent that they can't tell the difference between something mundane and something alien. So I applaud those who come forward and admit to believing it instead of suppressing their experience out of fear of ridicule.

So how do you resolve that it was ball lightning if it engaged multiple trajectories, paced the aircraft, changed velocities, and lasted for 45min before leaving the vicinity and disappearing from view, etc... like some reports tell us? Are they ET artifacts? How can you tell?

It's a matter of what is reasonable to conclude if we assume that the evidence is accurate. Without going into detail ( it's getting late here ), the analysis would involve a checklist of qualities that indicate technology and intelligent control as opposed to organic and unintelligent.

Earthlight studies reflect certain profiles including orange, red and green balls of light. Are they the same orange, red and green balls of light that pilots report at altitude? How can you tell?
Are they ET artifacts? How can you tell?

Same answer as above.

The UK Condign study suggested that ALL UAP are plasma phenomena including those which appear as solids. How do you credibly refute that without doing research and analysis? Or do you just declare your truths as fact because you believe that your logic is based on all the facts and is an accurate representation of reality?

In the above example I would declare the facts because my logic is based on all the facts necessary for an accurate representation of the reality, specifically, the overwhelming evidence for the meaning of the word UFO is that it is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, often presumed to be extraterrestrial in origin. However balls of plasma aren't alien craft, and therefore because balls of plasma ≠ alien craft, the theory that all UFOs are plasma phenomena cannot possibly be true. Perhaps it is the case that balls of plasma are being misidentified and interpreted by the witness as alien craft, but it isn't reasonable to believe that explanation applies to every UFO experience, therefore it's unlikely that all UFO reports are the result of plasma phenomena alone.

It is however possible that a percentage of UAP are plasma phenomena because the term UAP doesn't apply specifically to alien craft ( UFOs ). It's a more general term that may apply to a wide variety of possibilities, including some kind of naturally occurring plasma phenomena. However I would also submit that the term UAP could apply to some kind of unknown life form, and therefore unless we start assuming that life forms can be composed of balls of plasma ( an even bigger stretch than alien visitation ), plasma cannot possibly account for every possibility that the term UAP covers, which again, would give us sufficient cause to reject the theory that all UAP are plasma phenomena. So in either case, ( UFOs or UAP ), given the premises upon which the terms are founded, we have sufficient cause to reject the theory that all UFOs or UAPs are plasma phenomena.