Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Disclosure...what it means.

In any discussion of UFOs amongst even those with a cursory interest in the phenomena, the term "disclosure" inevitably comes up.

For many of these folks...again including even the uninitiated...there is a flat acceptance that the government or military has secrets regarding UFOs which it stubbornly keeps from public knowledge and scrutiny.

Several groups through the years have attempted to wrest such information from the government. CAUS (Citizens Against UFO Secrecy) , "The Disclosure Project", and myriad individuals...Stan Friedman notable among them...wielding FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests are just a few examples.

The one common thread which ties all these groups and individuals together is the belief that government keeps secrets that they should not...a belief that government keeps secrets of convenience as well as for reasons of national security, scientific advantage, or other "valid" justifications.

The current Bush administration has often been called "the - most - secretive" of recent administrations, and for reasons far removed from any question of UFOs. A brief and none too comprehensive list...

The details of the Vice-President's Energy Policy discussions.
The true costs of the Medicare "prescription drug" plan signed into law by the President.
The nature and extent of the domestic eavesdropping program(s) initiated after 9/11.
The nature and level of debate amongst intelligence agencies regarding Iraq's - WMD - programs.

And most recently, the revelation that the administration...and intelligence agencies ...has known for some time about a "heavy water" processing plant under construction in Pakistan, but kept it quiet.

This latest bit of "secrecy" is particularly troubling in that Congress is soon set to debate our relationship with India and Pakistan...with a keen eye on nuclear proliferation in the region...and this information was discovered and disclosed to Congressional officials by an independent watchdog group, rather than by the administration. The administration claimed that the information was withheld because it might "aggravate concerns in India...".

But this facility is not unknown to India. The only plausible reason for keeping Congress in the dark would be to tilt the debate on nuclear technology transfers to India. If news of further proliferation was kept from Congressional debate, the transfer of such technologies to India could be seen as "unprovocative". This newly uncovered information however might well have a large effect on Congressional approval for "adding fuel to the fire", as it were.

As Pakistan has made clear, it was not Pakistan but India who joined the "nuclear club" first, and proved its capability by detonating a nuclear weapon. And as a sovereign nation concerned with its own defense, Pakistan feels rightly justified in keeping up with its rival...just as it was between the US and the Soviet Union in decades past.

US policy...vis a vis the Bush administration...could do well with an alteration of this secretive trend. The United States was formed under the assumption that each branch of government would provide oversight...a balance of power...over the others.

But with such pervasive secrecy...especially regarding important bipartisan issues...hampering the rightful roles of the branches as proscribed, we face more bad decisions, continued loss of standing amongst our peer nations, and a severe affront to our Constitutional legacy.

Amidst this scenario, what are the chances of ANY disclosure of UFO-related matters?

Slim and None...and Slim just headed for the coast.

For UFO disclosure proponents and Americans at large...if not the world...the best hope is that the pendulum of "secrecy for its own sake" swings hard and fast in the other direction.

Now more than ever, open government is in ALL our best interests, lest we suffer further bad decisions and unquestioned policies. Now more than ever before in our lifetimes, our vote stands as a loud and clear declaration that this is not how we...or our fore-fathers...intended our government to be run.

And if the pendulum swings as far the other way as it has THIS way, UFO disclosure may well fall within our grasp...be there anything to disclose.

Kyle King

Comments:
Hi Kyle!

You know I have mixed feelings about "disclosure". You would like to think that those "in the know" keep secrets for some rational reason. You can bet that a number of serious, close attempts to unleash WMDs in the US have taken place, but they are not likely to admit it. UFOs are probably the same kind of thing.

However, it is curious that some level of officially sanctioned "disclosure" is allowed. Inspired by reading NARCAP's Dr. Haines reports of publicly available FAA databases, I read some cases from this database and was amazed to see some alarming things. A number of commercial pilots see unknown rockets or missiles (or UFOs from our standpoint) fly by their aircraft(!!!), alot of commercial pilots get laser/light illuminationed/ blinded as far back as 1980, reams of unknown aircraft (UFOs again) cause alarm/emergency action since the air traffic control does not "paint" them with their radar, objects hitting the aircraft from very high altitudes.

I was thinking of posting to UFOUpdates some of the details of these cases since NARCAP doesn't list them.

Only a few of the cases get press (I searched a newspaper database). I would have thought every report of a missile passing by a US passenger filled airliner would get front page billing. The one case that was covered in the newspapers about such rockets had a number of pilots report it and the military stated that a Trident missile firing occured at the same time. However the military could not explain how it could be seen by pilots 2000 miles away! (Ha!)

This case was disturbing. Did our military have a "loose" missile, did some Muslim extremist group launch a missile at the same time as the Trident, did some UFO (alien or whatever) decide to appear and mimic a missile due to the test firing (like UFOs appearing like airships in the 1890's or burning pillars in Bible times)?

One case was 'funny'(or all too typical of the "we can't handle the truth" philosophy) in that at cruise a commerical airliner was illuminated from above at night and called the air traffic control who told them other pilots had seen it and thought it was a meteor or space debris but when the passengers disembarked and inquired the captain told them it was due to a rare winter thunderstorm although he know there were none in the area.
 
Hey James -

That is some fascinating stuff! It reminds me of that opening scene in Close Encounters where the airline pilots have a "near miss" with an object, and when the ATC operators ask if they want to report a UFO, they all back off..."I don't know what I'd report", and "no, I don't want to file one of those", etc...

But you are right about the occasions when something of that nature IS disclosed. You would think that people would be more troubled by a missile flying by their plane than some unidentified "saucer", and that such stories would be kept under wraps, but here you find the reverse is true...in some cases.

But what is most troubling about the current administration is the tendency to try to keep EVERYTHING secret. Reclassification of many many seemingly non-security related documents that have been de-classified for months or years prior are but one bizarre example, and the ever-expanding surveillance programs on American citizens...notably revealed by insider whistleblowers...is another.

I'll be spending some time reveiwing the sources you mentioned. Looks like some really interesting reading!

Thanks for writing!
 
Kyle,

I like this: "Slim and None...and Slim just headed for the coast." lol.

I agree. I don't know if you read my article Disclosure on the D-List, but, while I think it doesn't do any harm to have a plan (after all, it _could_ happen!) (if it hasn't already. . .) but I doubt any government, anywhere, is ever going to disclosure "the truth" about UFOs.

(Now, they might "disclose" what they'd like us to believe is the "truth" but that's another matter.)

Yes, yes, call me paranoid, lol.
 
Regan -

Thanks...

I have your article saved and will read it tonight. And I would agree that disclosure is unlikely...only moreso under current conditions.

I definitely agree that we could get a "story" that sounds plausible...or have, think Roswell. :)

And a plan is never a bad idea.

Paranoid? Naaa...more like an observant, critical thinker who knows something of history, IMO. :)

Thanks for writing!
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?