Brane Space: Anti- UFO Crusader Adam Kirsch Continues His Fantasy Media Campaign Against UFO-UAP Reality With New Book

UAP captured in video by military pilots in 2017

Carl Sagan - finally admitted UFOs were real
Military vets: Graves, Grusch and Fravor at House Hearing

Adam Kirsch - "poet and UFO critic" - continues his crusade against reason and sound evidence, battling the ‘displaced vapors’ of UFOs and belief in them like he might have battled ghosts in an earlier era.

Kirsch's new book, We Want to Believe: How Aliens Went Mainstream and Why It Matters, published on Tuesday, 25 August, argues that the real danger of UFO disclosure is not extraterrestrials but the collapse of trust in authority.

The 128-page book, published by Columbia Global Reports, examines why unidentified flying objects, now more commonly called unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAP, have moved from the fringes of public life into mainstream debate. Kirsch, a senior editor at The Atlantic, is less interested in proving that aliens exist than in understanding why so many people want them to. He may have missed the point it's because they are real and here, i.e. having their way in our skies, i.e.

The Age of Disclosure - Official Trailer | IMDb

Thus he is able to scribble such twaddle as:

'Like the messiah, too, disclosure is constantly running behind schedule,' Kirsch writes, describing the long-awaited moment when governments are expected to reveal what they supposedly know about alien visitors.

Kirsch claims, in a recent (Aug. 29-30) WSJ Review piece (‘How To Read Signs In The Sky’, p. C7):

“The real start of my interest in the subject was in 2017 when there was this sudden reporting in the mainstream media about the Pentagon UFO videos and the so-called secret program to collect UFO reports," he said. "For the first time, it seemed like maybe there was some legitimate news or evidence."

Kirsch objected to the fact that - since 2017 - UFO reports were no longer discussed only through sensational television programs, conspiracy forums or stories about alleged abductees. Military pilots, Pentagon officials and intelligence figures had now begun speaking publicly about encounters they could not identify and which threatened their F-18s.

Thus for Kirsch the questions had suddenly, annoyingly shifted. Instead of asking whether UFOs existed, "many people began asking whether the US government knew more than it was admitting.”

He added that the changes reflected a "legitimating shift" in attitudes given government and the media “began to treat the subject much more seriously” and “instead of being dismissed as hoaxes or covered in supermarket tabloids were now respectfully discussed in the mainstream media and on the floor of congress”. Referring to the 2023 House hearings featuring actual experienced military pilots and intelligence officials who Frisch now dismisses like a bunch of drunks on Ripple.

Indeed, this "poet and critic" (WSJ, ibid.) ought to have the sense to grasp that trained military pilots do not "misinterpret" targets and multiple sensors do not simultaneously "malfunction". Especially on critical military exercises with naval vessels - like the carrier Nimitz - and high-performance aircraft (like F/A-18 Super Hornets) charged with our defenses.

So in fact, Adam Frisch is the one badly out of synch with reality given the military pilots' accounts were 100% legitimate, e.g.

Video Navy commander David Fravor gives detailed description of his encounter with a UAP

So as I noted in a previous post, i.e.

Adam Kirsch's WSJ Essay On 'Why People Believe In UFOs' Is A Blatant Exercise In Mockery and Distraction

Kirsch hasn't done nearly enough background research and reasoning to justify being a critic in an WSJ review piece, far less write a whole book on his objections.

Kirsch insists he "does not dismiss people who say they have seen something extraordinary." He basically agrees a person's account "may be sincere, detailed and deeply important to them". But “ It remains testimony, rather than scientific evidence.” As Kirsch puts it, testimony “can only persuade or fail to persuade.” This is particularly when the witness is a trained pilot or a former government official, so enabling Kirsch to claim:

“Authority may make a claim more compelling, but it does not automatically establish what was seen.”

Of course not, mate, so long as the hardest evidence is concealed! Case in point the House testimony (under oath) of Ret. Maj. David Grusch- a GS-15 level former intel officer would have no reason to lie or exaggerate. In his House testimony Grusch noted that actual UAP crashed remains have been recovered and in some cases "re-engineered" for our own technological benefit. This would represent the hardest kind of evidence. But the Pentagon powers that be have kept it under wraps.

Grusch also testified to the recovery and storage of non-human “biologics,” or what my now deceased AF brother Jerry said were called “EBEs” or “extraterrestrial biological entities” by the Wright -Patterson AFB brass. Contrary to Kirsch's spin, Grusch was forthright in asserting he could provide ample evidence on the spot. But he made clear that the only condition under which he could reveal such sensitive materials was in a SCIF - or special compartmentalized intelligence facility. He was not "cagey" about it at all, merely providing the conditions under which the hardest evidence - including 4k imagery - could be divulged without him being imprisoned.

And while we’re at it, though poet Kirsch cites astronomer Carl Sagan’s famous words “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” he appears to forget or else never discovered Sagan changed his own tune near the end. This was in a one-on-one with Northwestern University astronomy, J.Allen Hynek, made known in a SETI post:

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Excerpt: "The pillar of modern space science Dr. Carl Sagan revealed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek, that he knew UFOs were real but could not talk publicly about the matter and possibly risk the loss of academic funding."

So realists, and indeed rationalists as well as scientists, are sensible enough to change when altering inputs or data arrive.

Krisch has even claimed cameras seem to complicate the story, though he affords us not a single concrete, specific example - including location, date, observers etc. only claiming that:

"In some reported encounters, when the camera sees something, the person doesn't see it. And when the person sees something, the camera doesn't see it.'

Which reported encounters? Dates? Locations? Witnesses? This take is useless without at least providing us with concrete cases, and details supporting his claims. But... not even ONE. As if his offhand blabbery ought to suffice. His explanation is also trite. 'The obvious and logical explanation is that there's nothing to take a picture of.'

Uh no, Sparky. The obvious logical explanation is that you are not aware of the multiple sensor detections of UAP both by the military pilots and others. Which leaves you flailing in your own little fantasy world of specious objections.

This brings us to my one and only UFO observation 64 years ago, the detailed account of which I presented in the letter section ('Brainwaves') of The Mensa Bulletin five years ago and which I reproduce below:

Did I "believe" I saw this thing, whatever it was? No, I didn't "believe" I saw it, I flat out saw it like dozens of others in that crowd did. "Belief" didn't enter any more than if a commercial plane had gone over us instead. Would any intelligent person ask the witnesses in that Carol City, FL crowd if they suddenly "believed" they saw saw a UFO? No, that would be stupid. All of us there saw what we saw, and concurred with the aspects. No 'belief' was involved - which is always where the knee jerk skeptics lose their own credibility.