Saturday, May 28, 2016

DISCLOSURE is Coming?

There has been some talk inside the UFO community that DISCLOSURE is on the horizon with Hillary Clinton saying that if she wins the election, she’ll release the hidden UFO files. Others have said that President Obama has suggested that he’ll release these files before the expiration of his term, which would mean that it might come tomorrow or as late as January of 2017.

To all this, I say, “Nonsense.”

Why?

Because we’ve heard all this before. Remember Jimmy Carter, who had sighted
Venus and Jupiter in formation. Photo copyright by Kevin
Randle.
Venus and thought that it was an alien spacecraft. He thought that he would get to the bottom of UFO trouble. Nothing ever came from that, though these were some interesting times. There was even a suggestion that DISCLOSURE was going to happen almost immediately, but, in the end nothing came of it.

Bill Clinton said the same thing. But then he was asked about the Roswell case and said that he hadn’t been told about it. It was during the Clinton administration that the Air Force “reinvestigated” the Roswell case and determined that what fell was just weather balloons and rawin radar targets. Didn’t matter that the explanation was essentially the same that they had claimed in 1947, it was the answer to the question that seemed to appease many.

The point, however, is that DISCLOSURE was at hand, according to them, and for some reason it never happened. Skeptics will say it was because there was nothing more to release. DISCLOSURE had happened when the Project Blue Book files were declassified in 1976. There was nothing in them that was spectacular other than evidence that a classified project had been carried out, contrary to the various claims made by various officials over the years.

True believers will tell you that there was no DISCLOSURE because the secrets being held were too disturbing to be shared with the public, or it would disclose secrets about the craft that the government did not wish revealed for national security reasons. They will point out that General Bolender had said that the best cases were not part of the Blue Book system, and others will say that Project Moon Dust picked up the slack.

And now, once again, we’re promised DISCLOSURE. I don’t know why this has become an issue in this election, and while it is not a big issue, the mainstream media is talking about it, many of them seriously. It might be who one of the candidates is, or it might be that the President is looking for an issue to divert attention from other, more imperative matters, but there is discussion about it.

But, it won’t happen for one of two reasons. Either there is nothing left to disclose or national security will stop it. Personally, given what all we have discussed here, at other blogs, in magazine articles, documentaries and books, all the secrets are out there. Some of them are so wild that no one other than a few nuts believe them (really, reptilians on the moon?) and some of them seem truly exciting but do not affect our lives in any way. If we learned to tomorrow that alien races have visited Earth, what difference would it make? We’d all still have to pay our bills, go to work or school, do chores, take care of those who need it, and wait somewhat impatiently for the next chapter of Game of Thrones.


I would hope that no one is going to base his or her vote on the candidate who promises DISCLOSURE because there are other, more imperative issues for the President to worry about. But we all have to remember the history of DISCLOSURE… there isn’t one. It is sad that this promise is thrown out there periodically but it is even sadder that people still believe it will happen any time soon. I predict we’ll have full DISCLOSURE the day that alien craft lands to reveal the truth about alien visitation and not a second before.

46 comments:

james tankersley said...

Everyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is going to disclose some spectacular information about UFOs and what the U.S. Government knows is in for a mighty ride of their lives because here is what you got before, during, and after each thrilling election is won and even in the forseeable future of new elections you can pretty well count on what you will ALWAYS get from the same politicians on the so called left and right. READY FOR THE BIG DISCLOSURE MOMENT EVERYONE? ARE YOU SURE? OKAY I WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU WILL HEAR......nothing but CRICKETS*#*;#^#**

Don said...

"I predict we’ll have full DISCLOSURE the day that alien craft lands to reveal the truth about alien visitation and not a second before."

It is up to them, if they exist. I agree.

I wonder how many UFO advocate voters there are? Whatever "DISCLOSURE" means to them, The Democrats, at least, must think it an issue for enough voters as to troll them with the bait. I doubt they'd throw millions at it, though.

Only in America.

Best Regards,

Don

TheDimov said...

I agree, there wont be any disclosure. I think politicians use it as a tool to gain votes. Why *wouldn't* a politician wanting votes say hey sure, I'll let you folks know all about it when I get voted in. They know the numbers, they know the majority of the US populace is fascinated by UFO's and aliens, so its in their best interests to say what people want to hear, they've got nothing to lose and only votes to gain.
I don't think they ever planned to disclose anything from the start.

Nitram Ang said...

Hi Kevin

Interesting article.

There will of course be no disclosure for one of two possible reasons:

1) We have never ever been visited (most likely) or
2) The government could never openly admit it has been lying to it's people for so long...

But we all hope one day to be told "officially"...

I do agree with you about the USAF investigation into Roswell... their answer was essentially the same as the original explanation, it wasn't one weather balloon but several that were recovered at the ranch... like you I can't understand why so many people accept that ridiculous explanation.

Regards
Nitram

couldbebetter said...

Hilary already stated she will disclose, unless it involves national security. Of course it does so obviously she is pandering. Thought I would hate Game of Thrones but now I find myself suckered in to that idiocy. Anyone here ever consider Goldwater's comments on The Blue Room? It was so funny to read his letters on it because he could never use the term Blue Room in his replies! I would assume that the term itself was classified so he could not use it when replying to those who asked him about it. He also wrote to Lee Graham that the subject has gotten too highly classified for him to get anything on it. I wish the case involving LT Jacobs would get discussed in this forum as he was shown film that he actually shot which showed a disk craft intercept an Atlas missile test firing. I have a copy of his OER and some records from his then CO MAJ Mannsman. Both exceptionally credible people who were both shown some stunning footage from a telescopic film. Every credible source I ever spoke with either said Aliens exist or else they strongly hinted at it. My introduction to Lee Graham was through James Bamford at the time author of The Puzzle Palace. I asked him at the time if he ever came across info on UFO's while doing his research on the NSA. I still have the letter he sent to me in answer to that question.

Steve Sawyer said...

I suspect the recent, fairly low-level, media buzz about the disclosure issue, reviewing Bill and Hillary Clinton's past involvement and the current interest by Hillary in the subject, derives mainly from a New York Times article from May 10th of this year, and a brief discussion with Hillary on the Jimmy Kimmel late night show from March 24th.

See: http://nyti.ms/1TMB5if

See also: http://bit.ly/1XXSjsI

The problem is that I doubt very much (if there's "something there" in "the files," since, if so, it would be within a Top Secret/Codeword USAP, or similar extremely highly-classified project) that any recent President would have been "read in" to any such past or ongoing project or informed of such data, since such information would obviously be not just of the highest-level national security import, but would also have unknown social and cultural consequences or could potentially trigger vast anomie or even possible mass hysteria if revealed.

Can a President be trusted to not ever reveal, perhaps once out of office, such data? If not, who decides and precisely why?

The real "tell" in Hillary Clinton's comments are as follows, from the Kimmel show:

Clinton: "But, I would like us to go into those files and, hopefully, make as much of that public as possible. If there's nothing there, let's tell people there's nothing there."

Kimmel then asks, "What if there is something there?"

Clinton replied, "Well, if there is something there, unless it's a, you know, threat to national security, I think we ought to share it with the public."

"...unless it's a, you know, threat to national security..."

That should tell us Clinton has no real intention to disclose significant UAP data even if it were disclosed to her, which is doubtful.

So, not only is it most likely U.S. President's are not even informed of UAP cases that may indicate by their nature and behavior possible advanced non-human intelligence being somehow involved, but even HRC adds the proviso of national security as being a bar to any such disclosure.

{I'd sure like to know, if there is such a thing, what the legal precedent, secret law, or classified policy might be that would allow non-disclosure of such info to the President, who also acts as commander in chief of the military and intelligence communities. What else might anyone knowledgeable about such matters not be telling the President?)

Bottom line: I agree with Kevin that there will never be any official government disclosure, if such data exists within government agencies or classified projects, not because there's nothing there (I'm sure some elements of the U.S. government, like NORAD, have some very highly-classified data about UFO/UAP activities in the past, and maintain space surveillance of "uncorrelated targets" or UCTs currently), but because if any form of possible advanced non-human intelligence (ANHI), whether extraterrestrial or of other origins, does exist and has been detected via advanced sensor systems of the USG, it would be an extraordinarily critical national security problem of such significance that it could be a terrible mistake to make any disclosure, considering the potential impact on civilization as a whole, depending on the nature of what may be still classified and kept exempt from disclosure.

We already live in a very unstable world, with ever-increasing existential threats, due to human activity, and disclosure in some quarters may be perceived as a potential "tipping point" that elements of the government might have decided long ago were not worth the risk of revealing in any substantive way, regardless of whether to a President or anyone else "outside the loop."

That issue, IMHO, is the only thing that might justify non-disclosure if such data does exist in government hands, although I would find that a disappointing conclusion, if so.

cda said...

Tell me Kevin:

Is there any other country, where when elections are held, the subject of 'UFO disclosure', is raised at all? If not, then can you give us a good reason why the US seems to be the only country on earth where this topic gets a mention during an election campaign?

starman said...

cda:

To my knowledge, no other nation has experienced anything comparable to Roswell. What does France, Brazil, Sweden etc have to disclose??

Of course I agree with Kevin that we won't see disclosure anytime soon.

TomasBahama said...

I predict that in the next twenty-five years we will find life in it's most basic form on another planet, or a moon (not earth's moon) before we will find signs that aliens have visited earth. This is where it gets a little tricky, because in these encounters will we be the advanced alien life form. Will we be advanced enough to communicate with them? Or detect signs that they are communicating with us (bring in the psychics. I'm kidding!)?

If we use the Earth as a simple example of our universe we can say the population is scattered across the globe. The regions at the farthest regions are the least visited. Historically in these journeys we have left traces behind that we have have visited these regions.

In the past seventy-five years, with the advancements in rocketry, the one thing we can say is mankind does leave a lot of material behind in their journey. One only needs to look to the Earth, Moon, and Mars to see the machines that are no longer operational. They have served their useful purpose, and how long will these machines remain as uncollected debris. Up to this point in time we have not found any alien debris here on earth, or in our journeys so far!

We live in a monetary society around the world. How quickly people try to capitalize on their experiences (or fantasies) through more than one form of media. It makes you wonder, where are the aliens, their ships, and the robot probes?

Gal220 said...

"cda said...
Tell me Kevin:

Is there any other country, where when elections are held, the subject of 'UFO disclosure', is raised at all?"

I think you have give Podesta credit here, if not him, I dont think the issue would have ever been raised. Not getting the files published was his biggest failure of 2014...

However, as far as I know, Podesta has never revealed why he failed to get them released under Obama or Bill Clinton... Or what event(s) has convinced him there is something to reveal in the first place.

albert said...

@Steve,

"National security" is an extremely broad classification today. We now have declared 'wars' on concepts(terrorism) and inanimate things(drugs). Even innocent emails to foreign friends can put you on a watch list. Pretty much anything can be declared a 'national security' issue, even if it isn't. The gov't has little to lose by over-classifying UFO information, no matter what explanations are given, or the reality of the phenomenon.

It wouldn't surprise me if the military hands off all their UFO data to the CIA. It makes sense. Plausible deniability, and an unnecessary distraction for personnel.

I doubt whether everyone will freak out if alien civilizations are discovered flying our skies. Many cultures have had myths about inhabitants of the heavens, like the 'star people' of Native American lore.

I do agree that there has to be -some- data in the classified archives, even if it's just sighting reports.

As far as your 'impact on civilization as a whole' point, the US gov't has long since disregarded impacts on civilizations in whole or in part, even impacts on its own citizens (we are not alone in this). In reality, a moot point.

We are a worse enemy to ourselves than any theoretical extra-terrestrial civilization could be.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo
...........

@anyone,

As for the political theater, well, it's -political theater-, not to be taken seriously.

If there is going to be disclosure, rest assured it will come from the inside; a leaker, whistleblower, or whatever label you prefer.

. .. . .. --- ....

Tim Mullins said...

Well, this is pretty much a first here too, if that tells you anything. Yes, she's pandering towards every possible voting group she can think of.

cda said...

Perhaps Donald Trump holds the trump card on UFOs, not Hilary C. It is also possible that since the 'Disclosure Group' have already persuaded us that ETs have visited earth and may even be living amongst us, further disclosure from the government would be redundant.

Come to think of it, didn't Keyhoe, Scully, Adamski et al tell us this back in the early 1950s? No panic ensued, did it?

Starman:

What makes you think Roswell is so overpowering that no other country has experienced anything like it? You are being far too USA-centered.

Paul Young said...

Albert..."If there is going to be disclosure, rest assured it will come from the inside; a leaker, whistleblower, or whatever label you prefer."

We've already had a few. Sceptics choose to ignore them.


"I doubt whether everyone will freak out if alien civilizations are discovered flying our skies."

Don't you bet on it. One particular religion comes to mind, whose members whole daily routine is governed by it. Put another way, some of us would cope with "disclosure" a whole lot better than others.

All../
My own personal opinion of why it's all been covered up for so long is that the various agencies/experts in the loop, still don't know what the situation is.
I don't go along with some ETHer's thoughts that some Governments (USA in particular) know exactly what is going on...that they are in parlance with aliens...or even in cahoots with them.

In other words, the reasons for the cover-up are the very same as what they were in 1947 (or before)...that they still don't know enough about the alien's agenda, what we are up against, to really comment on it.

You can't have partial disclosure. So maybe the people "in the know" believe that giving us the little tidbit that "YES, they are here...NO, we don't know why, and NO, we can't do anything about it...could be more problematic than continuing with the denial.
And, maybe they're right in doing that.

I suppose the way they think about it, it's taxing enough having people like Randle and Schmitt mithering them for FOIA stuff...without now having to have the guys who've had their heads in the sand for all these years, like Lance and Gilles,(and the thousands like them.) mithering for more information, too!

I don't like the cover-up...but I can totally understand why it's being so rigorously enforced.

cda said...

Paul:

Pure wishful thinking.

"They" know aliens are here but not why they are here, therefore "they" can't tell us, the public.

And of course this knowledge is passed down from those "in the know" to others allowed into the loop as time goes by, like a sort of deathbed confession.

Wonderful, romantic idea, isn't it? Meanwhile science is kept in ignorance. Sure!

ufodude2010 said...

Kevin: 'Remember Jimmy Carter, who had sighted Venus and thought that it was an alien spacecraft.' Just curious why you say this? I just watched a YouTube video of him describing what he saw and it did not sound like anything of the sort.

Paul Young said...

cda..."Pure wishful thinking."

Really!
I suppose, in that case, we could get a newsflash one day telling us that: "Reports over the last 70 odd years, concerning Flying Saucers being of an ET nature are actually true. The Government apologises for fibbing about it...but you know how it is...soz!
But please don't mither the Government or Armed Forces for any more info...because we don't know too much more about the situation. If anything else crops up, we'll let you know.

...And now for the weather in your region.

james tankersley said...

lets not forget what former president Ronald Reagan hinted at in several of his speeches to the UN. To me when i heard him say......OCCASIONALLY I WONDER HOW OUR DIFFERANCES WORLDWIDE WOULD VANISH IF WE WERE FACING AN ALIEN THREAT FROM OUTSIDE THIS WORLD. AND YET I ASK IS THERE AN ALIEN FORCE AMONG US? this statement to me is about as good as disclosure as you can expect without having to reveal everything from our leaders. And Ronald Reagan had a few UFO sightings of his own. also you don't really need these promise breaking has been politicians like Hillary or Bill or even president Obama to reveal anything..its already out there because of leaks.

Craig McDaniel said...

Hi Kevin,

I too believe there will not be any disclosure. I wouldn't put it past any political to do a data dump of documents.

However in advertising, this sounds like what we call a "trial balloon". Hillary is testing the waters and maybe throwing mud on the wall to deflect from her email problems.

So the question is what are her motives and what does she expect to gain from this subject?

I can see Obama's motives if he wants to go for broke and disclose a "new cheap energy source" to the world that is environmentally clean. Obama could say that national debt (which will be by #$20 Trillion dollars by the swearing in of the new President) was in part to the R&D of the alien engine source. That would be the start to turn around his legacy. If this happened, Hillary would follow like a little puppy. That would just be the start. Both would declare themselves as heroes in helping to save the world and more.

Last, politically, a new miracle energy source would give them both cover for the lose in jobs in the coal industry and the future loses in oil and gas industry. They both know that the coal producing areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania could very well decide the election.

While I really don't care for politicians or politics of either party, I also don't trust either side to be honest with the people. So would it surprise me in Sept. or Oct. to hear about this? No.

couldbebetter said...

Paul, I agree with you. The situation is far more complicated as there are likely numerous ET races with differing agendas and perhaps conflicts. The history of ET races if mythology is to be believed is warfare with each other. The survival of our species may involve not only getting along with one another on this planet but working with those ET races who are willig to work with us. The problem (for us as well as for them) may be that they do not know who to trust nor do we. Another potential problem is if it is true that certain of these beings can read thoughts of humans that would certainly give them a huge advantage in that they could deal with those humans who they know would be the most helpful to them. Imagine if such mind reading Aliens were able to see into the mind of people like Dick Cheney. Perhaps it is a disgust of human actions that Aliens cannot trust us to bevave as a civilized planet that keeps their interactions with us secretive at their behest. Maybe aliens have learned that we are not rational creatures and are not to be trusted.

Brian Bell said...

@ James who wrote:

"lets not forget what former president Ronald Reagan hinted at in several of his speeches to the UN."

It was only one speech not several.

It was September 1987 and Reagan was giving a speech focused on global peace, democracy, and world economy.

The words you just referenced are taken COMPLETELY out of context by true believers...anything to convince yourselves that Reagan was secretly hinting at disclosure.

Read his entire speech and you'll see it has nothing to do with space, aliens, UFO crashes, or anything remotely related to ET.

The "alien force" he was refering to was "war" which divides nations. He was specifically speaking about communism and the Soviet Union using "the sword" for growth rather rhan "the plow share" as his speech clearly stated.

In the very sentance right after your "alien force among us" Reagan defines what he meant by "alien" ~

"What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?"

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul who wrote:

"We've already had a few. Sceptics choose to ignore them."

>>> Really Paul? What credible person(s) are considered whistleblowers regarding ET and a hidden government conspiracy to dupe the people of every nation?

"Don't you bet on it. One particular religion comes to mind, whose members whole daily routine is governed by it. Put another way, some of us would cope with "disclosure" a whole lot better than others."

>>> Pure BUNK from a judgmental atheist who believes ET deserves the place of Godhead in his world. Very sad Paul that your judgmental attitude about the other 90% of the world's population (who believes in God) muddles your one sided conclusion. Fact: Religious leaders from every faith have been asked this question and not one said it would have any impact on what followers would think or do if such a disclosure is made. It's the constant crap that you believers pump out about "the end of religion" at the "second coming of ET" that boggles the mind.

No such thing would happen. You must be spending too much time worshiping the words in Dolan's book and that ancient paper from the Brookings Institute.

Jim Bender said...

The public couldn't handle disclosure and yes we have been visited (at least 12-18 UFO events that cannot be explained. END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve Sawyer said...

I agree with Paul Young, above, regarding the national security problems disclosure represents to the US government -- whatever may be known within the deepest inner sanctums of the military and intelligence communities regarding the UFO phenomenon, it probably only amounts to partial knowledge that something which, at times, appears to behave in ways that suggest some kind of advanced non-human intelligence being involved, and if those elements of the USG which may have hard, sensor-based data also don't know the origins, nature of, or possible intent of those rare UAPs which have displayed such truly anomalous and reactive behavior in some sightings, it would be an existential disaster to disclose that, given all the inherent unknowns and hazards consequent to doing so.

So, the suspected cover-up would continue.

What concerns me most, however, in relation to this blog post's context, is what the Trump campaign and/or the media may do in the heat of the run-up to the election, when it will be Clinton vs. Trump, and if Hillary's honest interest in and curiosity about the phenomenon becomes a political issue, how Trump and the media may characterize her stated intent to find out more in anticipation of some form of potential disclosure: she will be portrayed as delusional and not qualified to become President.

And, I don't think she's pandering or trolling for votes, either. She has a lot to lose by going on the record about her interest in the phenomenon, and the voting constituency her statements might appeal to is miniscule.

She's taking a real risk in saying what she has.

Remember what happened to Congressman Dennis Kucinich when he was ambushed by TV journalist Tim Russert during one of the 2008 Democratic presidential debates?

Kucinich was laughed at and lost credibility as a candidate, even though he really was never a viable contender in the first place. The UFO issue in American politics is one of the electrified "third rails" of our polarized culture, and I just hope it doesn't blow up in her face for being so relatively honest.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc

And: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119923872081461417

This, and other factors, are why I don't think Hillary has thought through on a deep level what the consequences to her may end up being: If the proviso to bar disclosure is the "threat to national security," she has created a cognitively dissonant double bind for herself, in that if she becomes President, and seriously investigates whether the USG is withholding UFO data of real significance, and is told "no, there's nothing there" by the mil/intell elements that would know one way or the other, she will at some point have to declare just that, that as far as she knows or can determine, there is no cover-up or classified data, which sustains the cover-up quite nicely.

Those USG elements would never tell her the facts, if for no other reason than defensive protection and to provide plausible deniability, both to her and themselves.

If, on the other hand, and as commander-in-chief, she was informed of such potential data, she would be strongly warned not to disclose any of it for the very reasons she herself has stated would prevent any kind of disclosure.

The question then would be, if she was informed, would she lie about it to the American public? I think she would be compelled to, considering the possible impact any partial disclosure would likely have on the world. She would then become part of the cover-up, which would be psychologically a ghastly position to be in. She could not even say there was "something in the files," but that she could not disclose it due to national security concerns. That would be worse than saying nothing at all or denying there was any "there, there."

What a pickle to be in!

Paul Young said...

Seems Brian's temper has affected his reading comprehension skills.
As I've said only a week or so ago, you tend to need spoon feeding in order for you to understand things that most of us get the gist of right away.
Now calm down old boy, read the post again, slowly, and then even you (well, then again...maybe not) might figure out that I'm referring to one religion in particular that has, somewhat, fallen behind the times and may not be as appreciative of a disclosure as other religions may.

Quite emotional sometimes, aren't you Brian! ;-)

Unknown said...

Of course we're never going to get disclosure - but not because "The Government" doesn't want to admit that "It" has been lying for 70 years. "The Government" in charge now risks nothing by revealing that "The Government" back then concealed the truth - especially if "The Government" back then was under the opposing party.

Now as to the real reason we'll never be told.

When the government (yes, I've deleted the emphasis) started hearing from pilots, crews, and radar operators, it's inconceivable that the matter at issue - i.e., the possible presence of far superior technology of unknown origin - wouldn't have been considered to be of the highest importance. NATURALLY the government would have done EVERYTHING they could to find out what was going on.

The government had to have concluded that IF this really was happening, then the first finder would get an unassailable military superiority over everyone else - no more mutually assured destruction, but instead we win you lose.

Thus the matter would be one of national security. And with matters of national security, it's axiomatic that you tell everyone else, friend AND foe, as LITTLE as possible about what you DO know, what you DON'T know, and what you WANT to know. You want to get as MUCH of the information as you can, you want to get it BEFORE anyone else, and ideally, you don't want ANYONE else to get it AT ALL.

Therefore, you don't deal with such a potentially grave matter openly and minimally, by means of a program which is essentially, "Hey boys and girls, we'd like to know if flying saucers are real, so send in those stories and photographs!" Such bluebookery nonsense wouldn't be the sum and total of your real efforts. Rather, you investigate as secretly as possible, as assiduously as possible, and with every means at your disposal.

So of course the U.S. government took this in house, and never has disclosed, and never will disclose, anything it has discovered - if indeed there is anything to be discovered, and if in fact they have discovered anything. Probably, as everyone here has conjectured, there is some U.S. governmental unit, of which the public and most or all of the rest of the government are ignorant, that deals with the subject. And that's how things are going to stay.

Paul Young said...

Steve...

I certainly think you've described the process of how a new president has the news broken to them.
Some time back I mentioned that I found it difficult to believe that a newly elected US president could ask for the low-down on UFO's and be told by an underling that he had no "need to know".
KR's response was that he found it difficult too...that he would sack the underling on the spot then go to the next guy and ask the question. (I think we would all be tempted to do the same.)

Your comments above may square the circle.

The scenario would go that the presidential candidate who has been spouting that he/she would gain UFO disclosure for the public, as part of their manifesto...goes on to win the election...and when they eventually start seeking answers...they are told the truth as it stands, ie, UFO's are real and are ET and we can't shooo them away...but that is all we really know about it.
The new President then understands immediately why disclosure simply isn't an option...and then, as Steve Sawyer puts it...becomes part of the cover-up themselves, despite their very best intentions.

james tankersley said...

to Brian Bell.....with all due respect Ronald Reagan DID say these words and he made note of it in at least two speeches. In his other speech he gave he mentioned a threat from outer space. the speech you are referring is the edited version of what he had to take out after he made these remarks. but i did hear him say these words and i have not taken anything out of context. As i understand it Ronald Reagan had a big interest in UFOs because of several sightings of his own.

Craig McDaniel said...

A simple question and comment; Many politicians will conduct a "focus group". This is asking a selected group of people what they think about a certain subject. Did anyone hear or read if Hillary Clinton conducted a focus group on UFO's and disclosure? Normally a politician, let alone a Presidential candidate, would make a statement like the one she make without doing a focus group first.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

In your haste to further emphasize your biased religious viewpoint you wrote yet again:

"I'm referring to one religion in particular that has, somewhat, fallen behind the times and may not be as appreciative of a disclosure as other religions may."

That's nice but you never answered my initial question.....so I'll post it again.

You originally said "whistleblowers" have already disclosed the ET reality. So read carefully my question again and try to answer it with some facts that can be proven:

Q. What credible person(s) are considered whistleblowers regarding ET and a hidden government conspiracy to dupe the people of every nation?

@ Jim Bender who wrote:

"The public couldn't handle disclosure and yes we have been visited (at least 12-18 UFO events that cannot be explained. END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

What's the factual basis for your opinion? Or is this just another "Jim Bender" proclamation without factual support? And regarding your enthusiastic declaration that "at least 12-18 UFO events" prove we have been "visited", I'll believe you as soon as you show me (and the rest of the world) information that undeniably verifies this with scientific facts. Just so you know, I won't be holding my breath on this one....

@ Steve Sawyer who wrote:

"I agree with Paul Young, above, regarding the national security problems disclosure represents to the US government..."

And once again I have to ask what exactly are the national security problems this would pose after nearly 70 years of being hidden?

It can't be too problematic since we have the nongovernmental SETI Institute searching for alien life. And like most scientific organizations they would announce their findings to the entire world without second thought of national security. We even have NASA on Mars digging around for signs of microbial life. Clearly if the US was concerned about disclosure they wouldn't fund a government agency seeking life elsewhere, or allow private organizations to publicly operate a scientific search for ET with such blatant transparency.

Evidence of how the US government would really handle "disclosure" is provided by former President Clinton's August 1997 press conference regarding a certain Mars meteorite that suggested past life on the Red Planet.

Quote:

"I am determined that the American space program will put it's full intellectual power and technological prowess behind the search for further evidence of life on Mars."

"If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental."

I don't see any "cover-up" in his words to the public nor do I see reluctance to tell the world about life elsewhere.

Do you?

cda said...

James:

Ronald Reagan also had a big interest in astrology. For the record, both Ford and Carter were interested in UFOs too, and Carter had a sighting of his own while governor of Georgia.

I believe many people, including a few important people, have made statements about how nations on earth would be affected if ETs were known to exist.

None of this has any value towards demonstrating the 'official cover-up' idea is true. It is purely a matter of personal beliefs, even when the persons are US presidents.

cda said...

Brian:

You more or less echo my own views over the years. There is also the great prestige to be gained, as a nation, by being the first to disclose such a discovery (provided you are certain of the facts of course). The US would then be 'firstest with the mostest', wouldn't they?

I request that Jim Bender lists the top five sightings that he claims prove ETs are visiting us (or are still unexplained and strongly suggestive of ET visitation).

If anyone does manage to explain these five, he will doubtless try another set of five.

And so on....

KRandle said...

Jim -

Like many others here, I would like to know the "12 to 18 UFO events" that you believe end the story.

Paul Young said...

Brian! I was completely baffled as to why my comment...PY, 30th May,10.54AM "Don't you bet on it. One particular religion comes to mind, whose members whole daily routine is governed by it. Put another way, some of us would cope with "disclosure" a whole lot better than others."....
...had gotten you so hot under the collar and why you believe that makes me a "jugmental athiest".(incidently, athiest I am not.)

But on reflection I believe that your highly emotional responses explain quite a few things about you.

You're different from other sceptics here, (in fact, you're a debunker, not a sceptic) in that you are actually extremely angry over the subject.
Your aggression and resentment seeps out from most of your posts.
I couldn't understand it at first, but these recent posts of yours, on this thread, lead me to believe that your dogmatic resistance to even consider the ETH as a possibility is because it contradicts the religion (which one I don't know, or particularly care) that you follow.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul who wrote:

"...you are actually extremely angry over the subject."

Not really Paul. In fact not a tad "angry" at all. Zilch. I lose no sleep over it.

But I will say this...

You tend to "read into" people's posts (like mine) your own analysis of the person's "emotions" or "motivations" which so far have shown to be completely off the mark but also irrelevant to the discussion.

Instead of answering the questions posed to you about statements you make about why this or that is proof of one thing or another, you slyly digress into the classic "between the lines" psychological or circumstantial analysis of the person behind the opposing comment.

That's odd but I've seen it before.

Instead of redirecting to something unimportant, just answer the question which clarifies your prior statement.

Who are these whistleblowers that you claim have already proven a coverup of alien contact exists?

Are they to remain nameless yet "credible" witnesses?

It's this sort of claim that errodes credibility in the belief that the governments of the world are in cahoots about hiding alien contact from the public.

If you believe disclosure has happened or is at hand, why back it up with fictitious overly blatant statements that you refuse (or are incapable) of clarifying?

Craig McDaniel said...

As a remainder, this is the first conversation that is in real time or close to it. Tommy Dorsey and Glen Miller 70 year old hit records are not playing in the background. Because this is or close to real time, in a minor way, things that happened years ago in UFO disclosure are put on hold to an extent. I am not suggesting not to discuss any UFO event or people but to see if the flood gates of information is opened.

If I may suggest Brian, I would call this part I of Disclosure. Let's see how this plays out with Clinton and Obama after the conventions. Then after who wins the Presidency.

I don't see a disclosure happening but I have been wrong before. We don't have enough information to make a solid call whether the comments made are real or not.

If something does happen again either this year or next year, then part II will light up this blog and many others.

Brian Bell said...

@ Craig

If this is Part I of Disclosure (hypothetically speaking), how would you describe the past two decades of attempts to get disclosure by persons such as Steven Greer and Steve Bassett?

I would think somehow a person would include their (failed) attempts as an element of Part I.

Craig McDaniel said...

Brian,
I was simply pointing out that Disclosure of the past is not the same as the real time Disclosure that exist now. This is a apple and orange situation. Clinton and Obama just threw us unexpected curveball. There is likely a political reason behind it. Whether this is real or not, we will all find out shortly. Otherwise it's a cheap attempt to buy votes and lie again to the UFO community.

As to the past, the work of Greer, Bassett and sure others in not unappreciated. Everyone would have like the FIOA's requests for information to have been sent.

In short, this is a question better left for your congressman, senator or other political leaders to answer as to why next to nothing was sent regarding FIOA's.

Steve Sawyer said...

@Brian Bell:

Part 1 of 2

" @ Steve Sawyer who wrote:

"'I agree with Paul Young, above, regarding the national security problems disclosure represents to the US government...'"

[Brian:] "And once again I have to ask what exactly are the national security problems this would pose after nearly 70 years of being hidden?

"It can't be too problematic since we have the nongovernmental SETI Institute searching for alien life. And like most scientific organizations they would announce their findings to the entire world without second thought of national security. We even have NASA on Mars digging around for signs of microbial life. Clearly if the US was concerned about disclosure they wouldn't fund a government agency seeking life elsewhere, or allow private organizations to publicly operate a scientific search for ET with such blatant transparency.

"Evidence of how the US government would really handle "disclosure" is provided by former President Clinton's August 1997 press conference regarding a certain Mars meteorite that suggested past life on the Red Planet."


[Brian, we’re not talking about the basic possibility of microbial or other lower forms of life on Mars billions of years in the past. We are discussing the potential for a national security-related cover-up of some form of extremely advanced non-human intelligence either visiting or resident on our planet today. Quite a different, and much more serious, kettle of fish, I'd suggest.]

* * *

"I don't see any "cover-up" in his words to the public nor do I see reluctance to tell the world about life elsewhere.

"Do you?"

-------------------------------------------------

Brian, I don't see how you seemingly cannot distinguish the vast difference between what Clinton's announcement was about, and the real issue at hand here.

I really don’t think that what you posed was the question, or the answer -– again, we're not talking about what Clinton said about a Martian meteorite, found in the arctic, and the debate that followed Clinton's announcement as you noted in part above, and which only addresses the essential breakthrough that certainly would follow confirmation of any such microbial life. The key phrase in the excerpt you cited of Clinton's announcement was "If this discovery is confirmed..."

"If..." However, it was not confirmed.

The issue was seriously considered by now retired NASA Ames scientist Larry Lemke and his partner, Carol Stoker, who drafted a paper for peer-review and eventual publication, but when he said something at a cocktail party of some NASA colleagues, he apparently talked out of turn about actually having found a form of what appeared to him and his partner as a form of segmented nano-bacterial life, which would be a huge scientific finding, if it were true.

However, Lemke and friend’s pre-publication spilling of the “beans” they thought were theirs at an innocent party of colleagues, which then caused one or more of the people who heard what Lemke apparently claimed (the “Eureka!” moment of discovering non-terrestrial life, even if it was bacterial of some kind), turned out to be premature, and incorrect, and his idle party chatter was relayed on to certain higher NASA officials for investigation.

Even if NASA was initially or partly “taken in” by the claims made, after extensive, further analysis by NASA and various peer-reviews, it was ruled objectively to not be Martian nano-bacteria, but a kind of fossilized-looking object that, while unusual and “segmented” in appearance, like some terrestrial bacteria, was likely a secretion or deposit of chemical / mineral interactions, and the claims were essentially refuted.

So, Brian, your example of what the government would do in the event of disclosure is pretty far off the mark, or as Pauli once said, "...it's not even wrong," it's a false equivalence and red herring.

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 2 of 2:

Here’s the real question and issue at hand:

Hypothetically, if the US government, or any military or intelligence agency element within the USG, does have some kind of sensor data (which would therefore then not just be anecdotal or related to the psycho-social hypothesis), and if that data provided recorded evidence of some kind of as yet unknown, anomalous phenomena operating within Earth’s atmosphere at times that strongly indicated a form of directed control, including reaction to and avoidance of pursuit aircraft (and which there is some evidence of , such as the famous 1957 RB-47 case, etc.), but that regardless of what level of secret investigation and surveillance may have occurred in the past could not identify the origins, nature, or potential purpose or intent thereof, and that all that was essentially known within those covert realms was that what was objectively recorded was unexplained as any natural or man-made phenomena, and that due to the UAP appearance, apparent mutability, and detected motion or behavior, particularly in the event of reactivity to or interactivity with observational technology or aerial pursuit, then just what do you think the government could say to the public in regard to what would amount to only a partial disclosure of such data?

If we could not with precision and vetted evidence say anything as to what "they" are, or why “they” may be here, it would be a disaster to make any public announcements on the subject.

In fact, they would develop plans and policy to deny, dismiss, and ridicule such premature disclosure. Like the Robertson Panel did in their recommendations and findings.

This, of course, is speculation, but it makes sense, doesn’t it, if what I theorize just might turn out to be the case? And particularly if the “others” are so very different and advanced than we are, that it very well might trigger a massive, hysterical and xenophobic reaction to so stupidly and prematurely release such partial data in any formal or official USG pronouncement?

What would you do if some press conference was held by the DOD or executive branch that, essentially, said “we know ‘they’ are here, factually, but we don’t know what they are, why they’re here, where they come from, or what their possible intent in being here might be. Oh, and we can’t do a thing about them. We’ve tried, and failed. And, they are not in contact with or talking to us. We simply don’t know the answers to those questions. So, with that, have a nice day, and make sure you go to work tomorrow to keep the economy rolling. We’ll let you know if we develop more concrete info as to what the hell is going on, hopefully later. But, we may never know. Now go live your life as if we said nothing about all this. If you can, that is. Please.”

The fear of the unknown, in this kind of scenario, would be devastating on a personal, regional, national, and international basis. This should be obvious.

Talk about your irrational, potentially civilization-ending governmental statements.

And, our military and intelligence personnel who may be involved in covert investigation are not stupid. The sociological impact potential of any partial disclosure should and would be well-understood by such USG elements, and I'm sure they've explored that primary issue very thoroughly, if there is any such hard, vetted data.

Do you get it now, Brian?

There may be some very good reasons for a possible cover-up. The dangers potentially involved, and the lack of crucial data as to intent or nature of the UAP we're discussing here, would make it incumbent on those knowledgeable about even part of such kinds of data to stay silent. They would be required to.

That's my 3 cents worth of speculation, but “Your mileage may vary.”

Do you find any flaws in the logic of my theorizing, given the provisos I've noted?

If so, do tell.

Greg Ottensmeyer said...

Hasn't Disclosure has already happened?
They say 15,000 sightings are reported every year.

In July 1952, a squadron of flying objects, still unidentified,
flew over the White House, twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ufusvXDiFg

More than a dozen countries have acknowledged and released their files.
If I had to bet on any US President having the cinchonas to disclose,
I'd have to put my money on the Trump.

Brian Bell said...

@ Craig

Well my thoughts are this isn't the first time politicians seeking election have promised such a thing.

It may be real time, but my guess is nothing will come of it. Ms. Clinton may have a genuine interest in the subject, and be curious, but in the end this is classic pandering.

It was Podesta that got her to say it and she has admitted that (as did he). As campaign director I'm sure he knows every vote counts.

Craig McDaniel said...

@ Brian,

We are in agreement about Ms. Clinton and Podesta. This is why I ask the question about if they conducted a focus group to test the pros and cons of diving into the UFO subject. If there was a focus group then they are serious. If not, they are then she is blowing more hot air than a GE jet engine.

Also keep an eye on Pres. Obama between the Demo Convention and January. He can issue an Executive Order to release the information. His motive is legacy first then a host of political reasons.

If I had a choice, I would prefer the UFO information to be leaked. But I seriously doubt that will happen.

So I also agree with you, I too don't think nothing will come of it. This is still a hot potato with the public.

Craig McDaniel said...

Brian and Kevin,

Something I noticed about Disclosure. Since all the people we talked about from the Roswell years have likely died, I wonder if the secrets they held would still be secrets 50, 60 or more years later. Here is the reason why.

There have been historian and researchers that go back to the days of the pyramids. They write of events, about people and much more. I wonder if the McCoy's and others thought about this? Could any of them left clues about their involvement in UFO's many years before so others could find?

In the 1940's the internet was around. The internet didn't come online until the late 1970's and 80's. The public really didn't have much access until the 90's.

Now we see dozens of UFO related websites. However I have been seeing a bread crumb of UFO history or related history at places like Wikipedia, the new home for facts and history on all subjects.

So the question is, do you think the original people involved with Roswell, that were hardnosed security types left any clues behind?

Greg Ottensmeyer said...

Here are a few references for Roswell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBOY5jrOGwA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfTY7NuceQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HedqKNTt6AA

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell..."@ Paul who wrote:

"...you are actually extremely angry over the subject."

Not really Paul. In fact not a tad "angry" at all. Zilch. I lose no sleep over it."


I expect that you are losing plenty of sleep over it,considering the amount of time you spend on this blog discussing an hypothesis you dogmatically refuse to believe in. (I expect for religious reasons...but strewth...I don't want you to get palpitations over that again!)

Brian Bell..."You tend to "read into" people's posts (like mine) your own analysis of the person's "emotions" or "motivations" which so far have shown to be completely off the mark but also irrelevant to the discussion.

When someone flies off the handle over a comment I made that was totally relevant to the thread... "Don't you bet on it. One particular religion comes to mind, whose members whole daily routine is governed by it. Put another way, some of us would cope with "disclosure" a whole lot better than others."

...then yes, I do believe that your motivations and (especially) your emotions can be questioned.

If your "faith", or "belief system" makes it impossible for you to accept that some of the strange reports we've been hearing over the last century might be attributed to an ETH...then we are all wasting our time even discussing it with you.

It's a bit like arguing with those "Young Earth" advocates that believe our planet was created in 3800 BC (or whatever)...despite the fossil record, etc.