Sunday, June 06, 2021

Condon Committee Negated

 

More than fifty years ago, the Air Force, believing that they were on the spot about UFOs, paid the University of Colorado more than a half a million dollars to investigate the subject. The claim was that this would be a scientific study into the reports of UFOs and a search for evidence. Dr. Edward U. Condon, a respected nuclear physicist who had once headed the National Bureau of Standards and was one-time president American Association for the Advancement of Science, was chosen to lead the project. He was selected, according to some sources, because he had no expressed bias about UFOs.

Dr. Edward U. Condon

That wasn’t the case.

Early on, in the investigation, an exchange of letters between Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler, who served in 1967 in the Air Force’s Science Division, Directorate of Science and Technology, and Dr. Robert Low, who was a member of Condon’s staff, outlined what was expected which was contrary to the stated purpose of the study. Hippler wrote:

This is an informal letter expressing some thoughts on our round- table discussion on the UFO program, and does not constitute the formal letter requested by John Coleman.

There are two items which leave me a little uneasy. The first is the Wertheimer Hypothesis, and its corollary that one cannot "prove" the negative on extraterrestrial visitations. The second is an apparently obscure understanding of what the Air Force wants. Since I will discuss this second item, you will see why this is an informal letter expressing my own opinion–and hence is not binding on you.

On the first item, I wish to present a slightly different approach. When we first took over the UFO program, the first order of business, even before approaching AFOSR, was to assure ourselves that the situation was as straightforward as logic indicated it should be. In other words, we too looked to see if by some chance the intelligence people have information other than what exists in Blue Book files. There were no surprises. While there exist some things which may forever remain unknowable in the universe, certainly an extraterrestrial visitation must fall in the "knowable" category. An alien would not come light years merely to pick up surreptitiously some rocks, or melt holes in reservoir ice (al la Edwards). He would have long since gone through the geologic bit, and would be fairly knowledgeable of the make-up of stars and planets. You have stated that President Truman was unaware of the Manhattan Project until he became President. In that same time period, physicists not connected with the project were aware of the possibilities and knew that something was going on.

No one knows of a visitation. It should therefore follow there has been no visitation to date. As you are aware, if UFOs are an Air Force "sacred cow," the other services in the usual competitive spirit would not be constrained by this "sacred cow." Nor the “fear of panic” holding anyone’s tongue. No one is reticent about the horror of an ICBM attack. Words such as “end of civilization have been used many times.

This brings us to the second item. When you have looked into some sightings and examined some Blue Book records and become acquainted with the true state of affairs, you must consider the cost of the Air Force program on UFOs, and determine if the taxpayer should support this for the next decade. It will be at least that long before another independent study can be mounted to see if the Air Force can get out from under this program. If the contract is up before you have laid the proper groundwork for a proper recommendation, an extension of the contract would be less costly than another decade of operating Project Blue Book.

Condon understood exactly what was being asked of him even if others didn’t. Just three days after reading the letter, Condon was in Corning, New York, to lecture scientists including members of Corning Section of the American Chemical Society and the Corning Works Chapter of Sigma Xi. He said, “It is my inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this business [UFO investigations]. My attitude right now is that there is nothing in it. But I am not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year.”

What this demonstrates is that the fix was in. Although this was supposed to be an unbiased, dispassionate examination of the UFO phenomenon, it was, in fact, a program designed to explain away UFO sightings by wrapping it all in the mantle of science. And, for fifty years, we have heard about the Condon Committee’s negative findings and its conclusions that there is nothing of scientific value in continuing to study UFOs.

I’ll add here that another purpose of the committee was to determine if there was a national security implication in the sightings. They found that there was not even though they had run into that national security implication in the Belt, Montana/Malmstrom Air Force Base sightings of March 24, 1967.

In the end, Project Blue Book was closed and the Air Force claimed that they were no longer interested in collecting information about UFOs.

BUT –

All that has been negated by what we have learned recently. There have been many government programs to collect UFO data around the world, including one that we know as Moon Dust. According to the documentation available, Moon Dust continued until 1985, when the program was exposed. In a letter to UFO researched Robert Todd, an Air Force officer explained that Moon Dust was compromised. The name was changed but that name was classified, implying that the investigation had continued.

We have, of course, learned about the AATIP program, which again, was a study of UFOs. It was discontinued a couple of years ago. But Congress, as part of a Covid-19 relief package included a mandate for a study of UFOs with a report due 180 days after passage of the package. It was announced, just days ago, that the report would be submitted on June 25.

Here is what has been overlooked.

The New York Times reported, “U.S. Find No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but Can’t Rule It Out Either.”

This effectively negates the Condon Report which did rule out alien technology. The latest information tells us that there is something to be learned from further study of UFO reports and it doesn’t matter if they are alien, natural phenomena, terrestrial technology or something we haven’t even considered. The point is, we can now throw out the conclusions of the Condon report, study the case files because there is some solid investigation in them, and reevaluate our position. But we can no longer say that science investigated and found there was nothing to study.

The idea that there is no alien visitation based on the Condon Committee’s investigation has just been rejected by the headline that tells us that though they have no evidence of alien technology, they cannot rule it out, which is exactly what Condon did.

The next time someone says that we know there are no alien spacecraft because of Condon’s “Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects,” we can respond with, well, that might be what they said but it doesn’t seem to have been true then and certainly is not true now. The latest investigation, conducted by a mandate of Congress, says that such a conclusion can’t be ruled out. At this point we are starting from ground zero and given the history of UFO research, that’s not a bad thing.

40 comments:

  1. Excellent post, Kevin. I had high hopes for the upcoming Pentagon UFO report, but the leaked info seems to suggest it will solve absolutely nothing. Apparently, national security concerns aside, the American people, according to some, are still way to stupid to be trusted with the truth. Also, when one applies a standard of evidence such as "cannot be ruled out", what other discipline employs that when trying to ascertain the truth of any given proposition? Not a US court of law, not historians and certainly not scientists. Given the Pentagon would have immediate access to the best minds, methods and data, I simply do not believe it would be possible to arrive at such a non-conclusion. What also "cannot be ruled out", demons, time travelers and the Klingons?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kevin,

    Thank you for continuing to write about this.

    We know from the documents available in the “Blue Book” files that Admiral Hillenkoetter was “in the loop” as early as 1948. About a week after the Wyandotte Echo published their article about the supposed “Flying Disc” crash recovery, specifically on 12 January 1950, the Air Force Office of Intelligence Requirements published a rescind order, “SUBJECT: Reporting of Information on Unconventional Aircraft”.

    Notice that the term used was not "Flying Saucers". This is because the National Security title used for these objects was "Unconventional Aircraft", because that is what the "Flying Discs" were established to be. It listed 8 official orders dealing with “Flying Discs” and “Unconventional Aircraft” that were to be rescinded.

    We know that the rescind order had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there was nothing to report, based on known history. Also, the recipient list is important to note:
    1 Director of Intelligence, General Staff, US Army
    2 Director of Naval Intelligence
    3 Commandant/Intelligence, US Coast Guard
    4 Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence, Department of State
    5 Director of FBI
    6 Director of Central Intelligence

    The order was signed by Major General Cabell, USAF/Director of Intelligence/Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations.

    Since we know, without any doubt*, that they did not stop reporting and analyzing reports of Unconventional Aircraft, including the so-called, “Flying Discs”, after this rescind order, we must theorize what the order was intended to accomplish.
    Then, of course, we know that the Robertson Panel was used to put the first major obstruction into the path of honest research, by declaring it was all nonsense. As it was with the Condon Committee report years later, these conclusions did not end the analysis of serious sighting reports.

    This has been the pattern for years.

    If there was nothing to it, the gathering of official Intelligence reports would have ended right then and there.

    Thanks again,
    Bob

    • “Reporting of Information on Unconventional Aircraft” published on 8 September 1950, to the Commanding Generals, Major Air Commands, ZI and Overseas/All United States Air Attaches, from AFOIC.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So I guess this means this new report will not be a "Condon 2.0" report but something different? An "anti-Condon" report?

    I do have a fear, however, that the actual report WILL be a Condon 2.0 by stating that the Times article was wrong and that alien visitation HAS been substantively, if not definitively, ruled out.

    I really hope this new serious interest at least eliminates the stigma which has kept our best and brightest scientists from seriously looking at this subject. If so, maybe we can finally get on a straight road to a real answer to the UFO question.

    BTW, today, I listened to your recent two-hour podcast during which you had no guests. I was wondering whether you would consider answering questions from your bloggers, listeners and readers whenever you do those solo broadcasts. I know when you generally announce a guest, you tell us that we can submit questions we want those guests to answer. Maybe you can accept questions about you and answer some of those when you have no guests. I, for instance, have questions about how you got into ufology and science fiction writing, what your favorite science fiction books, stories and movies are and why, questions about your military and war experiences, what its like to pilot a helicopter, what you think of the different military helicopters in use today and a number of ufo-related questions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A friend of mine was an Air Fore officer assigned to public affairs in the Pentagon in the 60's. He said that not long before the Condon Committee was created he was in a briefing about UFOS and asked, "Do we have any material evidence of any kind associated with UFO's?" He was told "No."

    He thinks that was the basis for the Condon Committee. We had studied the subject for 20 years and never found anything, so it was time to wrap it up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Louis -

    By Condon 2.0, I mean that it will follow in that tradition. It will tell us that there is nothing in these tales of alien visitation and that all the answers lie in the realm of the terrestrial...

    But it also means that they have reopened an investigation into UFOs (okay UAPs, as if that makes a difference) proving that the Condon Committee was wrong in their conclusions.

    Finally, I have been posting stories about my Vietnam service. You can read all about it at www.vietnamgroundzero.blogspot.com. This is an ongoing commentary about what I saw and did in Vietnam.

    And, I write about science fiction as www.thesciencefictionsite.blogspot.com. You questions will eventually be answered there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. RWE -

    There was about a decade, decade and a half, of various officials attempting to diminish the importance of Blue Book or to end it completely. I think the Hippler letter says it all, but I have posted other information about this over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When you think about it....wasn't Condon right? After more than 70 years of alleged abductions, sightings, and so on.....isn't it apparent (at this point) that the only way we are going to know (for sure) we are being visited by aliens is if they [the aliens] make the choice to reveal themselves?

    That is unless someone believes there are pickled aliens out at Area 51. (And I find it highly unlikely that has been covered up for more than 70 years.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. That classified appendix pretty much ensures that interest will NOT go away when this is made public (even though I suspect that the classified section discusses means and methods of information gathering rather than any juicy tidbit regarding UFOs). Were I a paranoid sort I'd think that the classified section is almost designed to further conspiracy thinking...there aren't many good reasons to append classified info to a "public" report.

    And why the release of the Tic-Tac and other videos, as well as the reveal of AATIP? I feel a if there's a bigger picture here, as if we're watching the magician wave his wand while drawing our attention away from the sleight of hand...

    Yes, this may negate Condon, but to be honest the vast majority of the general public have little or no knowledge of the Condon Report.

    As for alien visitation: potentially some of the unknown objects are alien, but it's my belief that there isn't a single catch-all explanation for any of this. People who write off the UFO phenomena due to lack of evidence of extraterrestrial visitation should be open to other explanations (advanced military hardware, extra-dimensional/alternate timeline, Mac Tonnie's crypto-terrestrials, etc). The official line is "No alien visitors" or "No proof one way or the other of extraterrestrials" and never a peep about any other posssible causes. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous (09rja)...as explained previously, 70 years is not a long time for things to be "covered up".
    And Condon wasn't "right", at all. He (and his joke of a "committee") were simply a tool of distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous (09rja)...as explained previously, 70 years is not a long time for things to be "covered up".~Paul Young

    And as I explained previously: that's nonsense. No one can name a parallel even close to this. In the case of the Manhattan Project for example, not only were there public leaks, the project was crawling with Soviet agents from day one. There has been no indication (anywhere) of this within the archives of foreign Intel sources.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyone who thinks files can't be kept secret and locked away from the public, for decades on end, should try "FOIA-ing" files as trivial (by comparison) as some of those regarding the shooting of a certain US President.

    See how far you get with that!

    ReplyDelete
  12. As for Condon and his "committee"...LOL... I think the title in this blog describes it perfectly. It has been "negated" and I'm only sad that he isn't here to answer a few questions on why he took a job he didn't do (ie...investigate)...and took money for doing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anyone who thinks files can't be kept secret and locked away from the public, for decades on end, should try "FOIA-ing" files as trivial (by comparison) as some of those regarding the shooting of a certain US President.~Paul Young

    That pretty much demonstrates my point. Tons of documents have been cut lose (since the 90's) on the JFK assassination. In fact, they are just about all out now (except for things like income tax returns and so on).

    And I ask: what changed? What? Answer: nothing. All we found out about was a lot of dirty deeds [possibly not done dirt cheap] with the mob and so on. Nothing that changes the official conclusion that LHO acted alone.

    It's the same with UFOs. Every time a UFO researcher has gotten some documents.....what have we learned? Well, virtually nothing. That is except for the fact they were hiding a Intel contact, national security info, and so forth.

    And you don't have to take my word for it.....here is none other than Kevin Randle on Martin Willis's show:

    "Stan [Friedman] use to have a document that he finally got through FOIA and it had like pages and pages of everything blacked out and you'd see one word or a page number here and there and it was just absolutely worthless. We finally got the rest of the document and we understand now it had really nothing to do with UFOs the reason it was classified is it talked about listening posts that were based in Turkey that were monitoring Soviet communications. So at the time it was a national security item."~Kevin Randle on the Martin Willis Show (7/17/18 at about the 1:36:25 mark)

    So yeah, this "release the documents!" rallying cry (tried by every conspiracy theorist from JFK to TWA 800) doesn't fly for those of us familiar with how this works.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's the files that aren't released that are the important ones ..not the tidbits for the minnows.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, whether or not you believe certain files to be insignificant...they are still secret and have been kept secret successfully. (In many cases for more than 70 years.)
    That's why the FOIA in the UK and it's equivalent in the US, is pretty farcical. You will only get to see what you are allowed to see....because that's the only stuff that'll be released.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's the files that aren't released that are the important ones ..not the tidbits for the minnows.~Paul Young

    Well the "tidbits" are (in the case of JFK) just about the whole thing. And no big secret has emerged from these releases.

    So, whether or not you believe certain files to be insignificant...they are still secret and have been kept secret successfully. (In many cases for more than 70 years.)~Paul Young

    Which is meaningless. I have repeatedly challenged the UFO buffs (and you) to name some big secret that was cut lose after 50 or so years. So far....nothing.

    The Manhattan Project is the test....and the bad news for the UFO buffs is: it fails it utterly. Almost every Intel insider and credible journalist has said the notion the the US gov has recovered and is concealing ET space craft (for 70 years) is just inconceivable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have repeatedly challenged the UFO buffs (and you) to name some big secret that was cut lose after 50 or so years. So far....nothing.

    Exactly my point. They are successfully kept secret. If governments want secrets kept secret then investigators can request FOIA's till the cows come home...but won't get far. Tidbits, on the other hand, get released.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Exactly my point. They are successfully kept secret. If governments want secrets kept secret then investigators can request FOIA's till the cows come home...but won't get far. Tidbits, on the other hand, get released. ~Paul Young

    Yeah that doesn't work. It's pretty much circular reasoning. We don't know what is being held secret because they are always successful in keeping secrets? Sorry: not true. If that was so, there never would have been things like the Pentagon papers & Watergate and so forth. So far, not one Daniel Ellsberg in 70 years.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I could feast out forever on your ridiculous statement that secrets can't be kept secret for 70 years...the list is endless, but by total chance I was reading an article on the the sinking of RMS Lancastria during WW2.
    Files on that incident have been sealed by the UK Official Secrets Act until 2040...AND when the time comes, there's nothing stopping an extension to the sealing of those files. (extension to various secret files are added regularly)

    So...YET ANOTHER example of secrets being kept from the public, (in this case 81 years and counting) despite efforts to have the files opened.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. I could feast out forever on your ridiculous statement that secrets can't be kept secret for 70 years...the list is endless, but by total chance I was reading an article on the the sinking of RMS Lancastria during WW2.~Paul Young

    You still haven't quite figured out the difference between a significant secret and something that doesn't mean very much have you? (What exactly do you feel is being concealed by documents on a WW II ship?)

    By your logic, every divorce lawyer is sitting on dynamite because he/she has confidential records. (Documents that it would take a court order to unseal.) Just this past year, I tried to get the death certificate of someone I knew that died more than 20 years ago. The state I live in said "no". What big secret will this death certificate reveal? That he was a alien?

    This is the issue with UFO buffs.....they really don't know what they are looking at. When Stanton Friedman debated Phil Klass on MJ-12 (on the show Nightline) in 1987, I think Ted Koppel said it to Stan as well as anyone could:

    "I don't know how familiar you are with Washington-I am very familiar with Washington-and I know that it is almost impossible to keep a story of that sort of dimension, without some leak or another filtering out of from some part of the bureaucracy or government establishment over a period of 40 days, let alone 40 years."

    Exactly right. Nobody is going to risk what Daniel Ellsberg did over some WW II ship....but aliens? That's a different story.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Significant secret"?

    My only point has been that if a government wants to keep a secret, secret, then they have been proven to be capable of doing that. RMS Lancastria...etc :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. I should add...anything that is being kept secret for 100 years (and that could be increased) as in the case of the RMS Lancastria must be fairly significant.

    Watching you trying to wriggle out of your daft statement that secrets can't be kept for 70 years is most entertaining... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  23. My only point has been that if a government wants to keep a secret, secret, then they have been proven to be capable of doing that.~Paul Young

    And my point is: they aren't capable of keeping a very big/significant secret like this for very long. And the evidence backs me up on that. The fact you can't name anything (other than meaningless things such as WW II ships and so on) proves my point.

    Watching you trying to wriggle out of your daft statement that secrets can't be kept for 70 years is most entertaining..~Paul Young

    Another strawman. That (of course) isn't what I said. (After all, I've got "secrets" in my desk.) What I actually said was significant secrets cannot be covered up for a great deal of time.

    If anything is entertaining it is watching the mental gymnastics and ridiculous arguments of the UFO buffs. Circular logic, a complete lack of knowledge about the world around them (which leads to their/your inability to place things in the proper context), strawman arguments, etc, etc. This is why people have such a hard time taking all this seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chuckle.
    Sadly (for you) what is considered a "significant" secret and what isn't, is not up to you.

    As for your being "very familiar" with Washington! LOL...and "having secrets in your desk" CHUCKLE...
    We all know BS when we hear it and you ooze with the stuff.

    You don't even have the courage of your convictions to post under anything other than an anonymous handle...so I expect you're living with mum and sat at your laptop wearing a Star Trek commander's uniform! Chuckle.

    Anyways...back on topic... Why would you say that files being kept secret over the sinking of RMS Lancastria isn't significant? . It was an incredibly important incident.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ...Incidently, how do you know if a secret file hasn't got what you laughingly call a significant secret within them!

    You can't read them, so you can't know...because they are secret! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. You know somebody has lost when they resort to this personal stuff. (It's like Russ Estes said about a lot of people involved in this stuff: "If you can't trust the messenger.....how can you trust the message?")

    What is significant? Well, name something. You can't can you? That's the point.

    Why would you say that files being kept secret over the sinking of RMS Lancastria isn't significant? . It was an incredibly important incident.~Paul Young

    Why governments don't cut documents loose has been explained to you numerous times. You just don't know enough to counter the point. Haven't read very much about Intel have you? (Did you miss the Randle quote elsewhere in this thread?)

    As for your being "very familiar" with Washington! LOL~Paul Young

    Are you even reading what I am posting? WHO said that? Go back and look at who I was quoting. (Hint: it wasn't me.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. There you go again, you halfwit.
    You allude to being someone who knows about "intel"... but you post anonymously...therefore we can't assume that anything you say has any substance.

    As I said, it is more likely that you are a troll posting from your mother's house.,,in your childhood bedroom, wearing your Star Trek pyjamas, as you are a person in the "intel know"

    At least other debunkers who frequent KR's blog (like Lance) ...have the strength of character and the courage of their conviction to post under their real name.

    You, however, are the straw-man. Too weak and feeble to even post under your own name. Like I said previously, you hang around websites pretending you are not interested in the content of that site like someone who hangs around the gents pretending that they are actually "straight".

    But I know the truth. :-)

    Anyway...how is it that secret files can't be kept secret when pre-WW2 files are still secret?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why would you say that files being kept secret over the sinking of RMS Lancastria isn't significant? . It was an incredibly important incident.~Paul Young

    How so? Explain what was so important about it and what you think is being concealed. The only person I've ever heard say there is some big Earth-shattering secret with this is.....you.

    And by the way, the I-don't-know-because-those-documents-are-secret tripe isn't a acceptable answer. (Your go to reply. lol)

    ReplyDelete
  29. You allude to being someone who knows about "intel"... but you post anonymously...therefore we can't assume that anything you say has any substance.~Paul Young

    If that makes sense to anyone else.....let me know. Maybe Paul has been hittin' the sauce early this evening. :)

    I quoted a highy regarded journalist.....you are quoting yourself. Everything is YOUR opinion.

    At least other debunkers who frequent KR's blog (like Lance) ...have the strength of character and the courage of their conviction to post under their real name. ~Paul Young

    I'd sure like to know how anyone can really know anyone's real name on the internet. I could call myself Spiro T. Agnew....and how would you know the difference? Anybody can (obviously) create a google account with any name they wish. It's just another ad hominem from someone who doesn't have a argument.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous... "It's pretty much circular reasoning. We don't know what is being held secret because they are always successful in keeping secrets?

    Who said that secrets are "always" successfully kept?

    ...............

    Anonymous..."And my point is: they aren't capable of keeping a very big/significant secret like this for very long. And the evidence backs me up on that. The fact you can't name anything (other than meaningless things such as WW II ships and so on) proves my point.

    Sadly for you...You don't get to legislate as to what is, or isn't, a significant secret that needs to be kept hidden away under things like UK's Official Secrets Act.
    Governments decide...not a minnow like you ...Chuckle.

    If a Government didn't consider a secret to be significant, then they wouldn't deem
    it necessary to ensure they are locked away from the publics prying eyes...(ONE case being that of the files concerning the sinking of RMS Lancastria) :-)

    '''''''''
    Anonymous..."And by the way, the I-don't-know-because-those-documents-are-secret tripe isn't a acceptable answer.

    Chuckle...It kills you, doesn't it, that the answer to your daft statement that "secrets can't be kept for long periods" is so easily thwarted by the sheer fact that so many secret files have been locked away for more than 100 years....and despite FOIA requests, you STILL have no idea what information is in them. :-)

    It's so entertaining watching you try to come up with a way to argue against such a fundamentally true statement as my, "I-don't-know-because-those-documents-are-secret"

    Chuckle :-)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lets think about the "logic" we've heard from "Paul" here:

    #1: You have to know who a poster is in order for him to quote a internationally know (and respected) journalist.

    #2: The fact a government can conceal anything....means they could conceal everything.

    #3: He still can't name some big secret that was held for more than 50 years.

    The "logic" of the UFO proponents never ceases to amaze. :)

    ReplyDelete
  32. BTW...let's not forget that not only are pre-WW2 files still locked away but pre-WW1 too. (In fact files from the Crimean War are still locked away under the Official Secrets Act...obviously because they are totally insignificant

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. BTW...let's not forget that not only are pre-WW2 files still locked away but pre-WW1 too. (In fact files from the Crimean War are still locked away under the Official Secrets Act...obviously because they are totally insignificant~Paul Young

    What a ridiculous argument. It's been explained to you numerous times (here and in other threads) why governments conceal documents. It doesn't mean we are talking anything important. (At least to the average person.) You've been given examples of all sorts of info cut loose that the average person just yawned at. Yet you can name nothing on the other end of the spectrum.

    Ridiculous isn't the word.....pathetic would be more precise.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous ,,," What a ridiculous argument. It's been explained to you numerous times (here and in other threads) why governments conceal documents. It doesn't mean we are talking anything important. (At least to the average person.)

    Sorry but you haven't explained anything at all.
    Believing that secret files are kept secret just to conceal personal information on various agents (or whatever) involved in various cases, doesn't cut the mustard.

    That previously secret files released have shown up personal details of agents/officers, etc...is certainly the case...HOWEVER...they are just the tidbits to keep the minnows like you happy.

    It's the files that are still being kept secret that is the issue here.
    Why would files still secret from as far back as WW1 and Crimean War be kept secret just in order to protect an agents ID?
    They are kept secret because they obviously have inconvenient truths within them that the government thinks are significant enough to keep secret.

    I like you...You're a funny guy! :-) (keep trying to wriggle out of your daft statement,,,it's entertaining. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Believing that secret files are kept secret just to conceal personal information on various agents (or whatever) involved in various cases, doesn't cut the mustard.

    That previously secret files released have shown up personal details of agents/officers, etc...is certainly the case...HOWEVER...they are just the tidbits to keep the minnows like you happy.

    It's the files that are still being kept secret that is the issue here.
    Why would files still secret from as far back as WW1 and Crimean War be kept secret just in order to protect an agents ID?"~Paul Young


    It's the "or whatever" part that you keep missing. (And has been explained.) There are all sorts of reasons....to quote a previous post of mine (on another thread) to you:

    Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things like that to conceal names, means of intelligence gathering, the fact they are gathering Intel in the first place and so on. In other cases they are covering up outright wrongdoing (like plotting with the mob to kill Castro or other embarrassing stuff). These things undermine their credibility and can make asking for funding more difficult. To the average person, it's meaningless.....on Capital Hill.....it makes things difficult. Obviously a crashed UFO doesn't quite fall into this category."~ME

    So no, we aren't just talking agent's names here.

    I would like to add to that the fact that there is a bureaucratic mentality at a lot of these organizations. They don't like even putting out even the most mundane stuff. When the FOIA act passed organizations (like the FBI, CIA, etc) subtly resisted by doing such things as making bad copies, "losing" requests and so on. And when researchers got it....what did they get? Nothing.

    You really don't understand any of this do you? You don't know anything about Intel, how governments work, and so on. All you've read about is thus UFO stuff. That's ok, it puts you in good company with a lot of people in this field.

    And by the way, I'm still waiting on you to name any credible person who believes there is some big secret being concealed in some file on the Crimean War or the sinking of a WW II ship. So far, the only person who you have quoted who believes that is.....you. And that's not my idea of a credible person. lol

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous..."Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things like that to conceal names, means of intelligence gathering, the fact they are gathering Intel in the first place and so on. In other cases they are covering up outright wrongdoing (like plotting with the mob to kill Castro or other embarrassing stuff). These things undermine their credibility and can make asking for funding more difficult. To the average person, it's meaningless.....on Capital Hill.....it makes things difficult. Obviously a crashed UFO doesn't quite fall into this category."

    Certainly those types of secrets are amongst those secrets that were released...but the real serious stuff is what has been withheld and kept secret, successfully, for 70, 100, 150 years, and so on. (The "significant" stuff) :-)

    Either way...they were secrets that were kept secret for whatever reason. And significant reasons according to the governments that wanted them kept secret.

    (Once again, you make my argument for me.) :-)

    As for secrets being kept secret from pre WW1/Crimean war, etc...what possible reason would there be for those secrets being kept secret? :-) They still want "means of gathering intelligence" kept secret? (chuckle)

    They still want "the fact that they are gathering intel in the first place" , kept secret? (Do you really believe the UK government want secrets from the Crimean War kept secret so that no one can find out that we were gathering "Intel" at the time?
    Are you having a laugh?

    Well...either way, they've done a good job considering the secret files concerning the Crimean War have now been successfully kept for just under 150 years now,

    Chuckle. Thanks again, for making my argument, for me. (ie, that secrets can be kept secret for 70 years...and way over.) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things like that to conceal names, means of intelligence gathering,..

    Yep. And they are the sorts of secrets that get released at some stage.
    It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here. And, as we have seen, can remain secret for decades longer than 70 years. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  38. "It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here. And, as we have seen, can remain secret for decades longer than 70 years."~Paul Young

    But "secrets" get cut loose (all the time) after 50-70 years.....and they are typically meaningless. I have yet to hear anything named that comes close to something meaningful. There should be a example of this.....and there isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  39. But "secrets" get cut loose (all the time) after 50-70 years.....and they are typically meaningless. I have yet to hear anything named that comes close to something meaningful. There should be a example of this.....and there isn't.

    That's because the secrets that become relatively meaningless, a few decades later, (ie...as you put it, "names of operatives"..."means of intelligence gathering"..."the fact that they are gathering intelligence in the first place")...are eventually deemed, by the powers that be, permissible for release.

    Yep, as you say, those details, decades later, are "typically meaningless"...and if someone applies an FOIA for the release of files...then what better way to stall them and frustrate them for a few more years, than to release stuff that was irrelevant to that persons investigation.

    The important secrets outlive the lifespan of the investigators.

    It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here.
    And as we have seen, they can be hidden successfully for decades more than just 70 years.

    ReplyDelete
  40. That's because the secrets that become relatively meaningless, a few decades later, (ie...as you put it, "names of operatives"..."means of intelligence gathering"..."the fact that they are gathering intelligence in the first place")...are eventually deemed, by the powers that be, permissible for release.

    Yep, as you say, those details, decades later, are "typically meaningless"...and if someone applies an FOIA for the release of files...then what better way to stall them and frustrate them for a few more years, than to release stuff that was irrelevant to that persons investigation.

    The important secrets outlive the lifespan of the investigators.

    It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here.
    And as we have seen, they can be hidden successfully for decades more than just 70 years.
    ~Paul Young

    Only problem is: I haven't heard a example of a big time secret that was kept for 70 years. Saying there is one unreleased is meaningless. Also saying it becomes meaningless is contradicting yourself since-by your own logic-no one would keep those secrets anyway once they become meaningless would they? Recall you said earlier: As for secrets being kept secret from pre WW1/Crimean war, etc...what possible reason would there be for those secrets being kept secret?

    You are also (of course) omitting many of the other reasons I gave for keeping this stuff secret.....including the "bureaucratic mentality" with governments. Which is likely in play here.

    And by the way.....just as a reminder: you are the only person I've heard so far say there is anything of value in files about the Crimean war and so on. Do you see any groups of academics or historical associations jumping up and down and demanding the release of these documents to set the historical record straight on the Crimean War or a WW II ship? Didn't think so.

    So lets define "significant"......so there is no more haggling over what is/isn't "significant"....or "Earth-shattering" (another term I've used)......my criteria:

    1. It's got to be something (at release) on the front page of major newspapers for days/weeks. Same with the broadcast media.

    2. People have got to be talking about it. I mean, you walk into restaurants and so on and you hear frequent conversation on it.

    3. It impacts people's lives and/or changes/impacts what historians think about a important event.

    4. Lots of people had to have known about it for 50-70 years (at the point of release) and kept quiet.

    5. It has to be something PROVEN. Roswell (of course) falls into the unproven category. Nobody is debating if Watergate or the Pentagon papers are real. (We still are with MJ-12.)

    #4 is very important and demonstrates one (of many) very important differences between a concealed UFO crash and stuff like a sunk WW II ship or the Crimean War. With the latter, we are likely talking something that maybe a handful of people have seen (considering people who are currently alive). And apparently they didn't think it was too important. On the other hand, had there been a UFO crash 70 years ago.....likely thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, engineers, and so on would have seen this information by now. And so far, just about all of them have remained silent. (Unless anyone is foolish enough to believe frauds like Bob Lazar.)

    Soooo, that is what I am after here. Something big. Needless to say, nothing named so far comes close. About the closest thing I can think of is the identity of Deep Throat. That got a lot of people talking and was all over the media. Even some historians said it altered their perception of Watergate to a degree. But that (of course) doesn't meet my criteria due to the fact that A) it wasn't concealed anywhere close to 50 years, and B) only about 4 people knew the secret.

    And if you are reading this and thinking: there is no example of what I want.....well, that's the point.

    ReplyDelete