How Much Disclosure Is Enough?

How Much Disclosure Is Enough?

Can anyone really conceive this government we know today... coming clean on UFOs or any other subject while, at the same time, they are fighting tooth & nail to watch our every word?

Seriously.

How do we even think that this could happen or if it did, that the information we were fed was worth digestion?

Trust has long since relocated. Today, the challenge is closing an ever-widening (and vast) canyon between that which we used to call OUR government and what we know today to be something else so alien as to have leapt from that book by George Orwell decades past!

Speaking for myself, here and now... if this government told me that Roswell was real and alien... I'd be inclined to cite the old swamp gas theory.

Another reason for governments to mantain the coverup is to mantain the upper hand of TPTB (these are not the governments) and therefore the status quo.

Think, why do you make a secret? Either are you bluffing or you are trying to get/to mantain a personal advantage.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by samstone11

 

Anything shy of showing us a physical ship and physical EBE specimen, just isn't going to cut it...

I mean, there's a lot of evidence, some good, most bad...but these things would be requirements to PROVE it.

Assuming there is something to disclose, the important thing really becomes WHY is it a secret in the first place? What's the alien agenda? And why is their secrecy necessary? Is that our desire, or theirs?

In my experience, the only reason to keep a secret is that you know people aren't going to like the reality....

Precisely. Especially the far more relevant questions you propose: Why [keep the secret]? [who's secret...] Agenda? [why is it..] Necessary? [who's secret]... Desire?

Allow me to offer ANOTHER reason to keep a secret (other than just to suppress reality from those who may not like it):

Because although keeping a secret is difficult and even painful, disclosing the secret would bring much more pain than the effort and expense in maintaining it in perpetuity.

Alien life, cooperation, other dimensions etc are all something that BELONGS to the rest of us too. What kind of fool takes it upon himself to declare that everyone else can't handle the truth? Sure, there would probably be pockets of chaos in some places but mankind is good at adapting quickly. I think it would be best for everyone to learn about all this stuff at the same time as apposed to a select few having this knowledge for decades on end, then all of a sudden one day the rest of us become privy to this information and are lagging behind and facing a steep learning curve.

reply to post by ShadowLink


I would agree the truth belongs to us all but I also understand that we may not be ready. The truth could shatter all we have ever believed in. What if we are all just a small part of a simulation? Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated, for example by computer simulation to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality, and our reality may in fact be such a simulation. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation. This is a wild theory but not out of the bounds of possibility.

reply to post by samstone11

Originally posted by samstone11
...
If we were presented with absolute proof of disclosure by a sufficient authoritative body/individual, would that open them up to such intense scrutiny on other paranormal/unusual/abnormal subjects that this alone could prevent them from stepping forward?
...
Thanks.

You presented a hypothetical scenario which presupposes that aliens are visiting, are relatively benign, and that the government has been in contact with them. I will accept the above assumptions for my response.

I believe you can compare your question to any controversial topic of our modern day world. Somebody has already made a comparison to the war in Iraq and the controversy over WMDs. We seem to have difficulty agreeing on the facts of an event and it's even more difficult when the information is subjective. The question about WMDs is a good example. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if you could find somebody to argue the pro-WMD side to this day despite the lack of evidence. So, the first point to consider is that you could never truly have "irrefutable" disclosure.

1.) Irrefutable disclosure is not possible

I know this was one of your original assumptions but I couldn't include it in the list above. My justification is that we have shown that we are unable to agree as a society and people will believe what they choose despite evidence. Also, consider the prejudice built up from decades of movies and UFO culture.

2.) To err is human

We are all born into the world in the same way - wearing our birthday suits. We all have a similar capacity for good, bad, love and hate within us. Of course, there is a distribution across a bell curve but even the end cases are likely not significantly different when compared to the hypothetical notion of alien intelligence. So the next piece to the puzzle is to ask yourself what you would do. Would you be afraid to release information about secret treaties to abduct and experiment on the population which you had sanctioned?

3.) Information is compartmentalized

Even if a few key people had the majority of information, most people that were informed before the hypothetical disclosure would likely only have a piece of the puzzle. This would probably be the biggest force from preventing any true disclosure. It would take a long time for the information to percolate through the system. The more people that are exposed to the information the greater the chance of disclosure. This isn't just due to the obvious effect of information leaks, but also the increased likelihood that the plan going forward would be evaluated from a ethical and moral lens. In other words, people mature along with the information and the present cares little for the past (ex, JFK). I think the compartmentalized effect plays a much larger role in the beginning than fear of reprisal.

4.) Values and social structures change with each new generation

This is probably one of the best adaptations for our species. It provides us with the flexibility to adapt to change while retaining the benefits of stability acquired from rigid generational view points. Each generation adapts and builds on the successes of previous generations but they are able to cast off problems from the past. The fight for civil rights today compared to the United States Civil War is evidence of this advancement. It isn't always a straight path. So there is regression and advancement, but it is still an effective search algorithm for the solution to the challenges of society as plotted across time.

I believe the points above would create a narrative as follows. An agency that made contact would keep it hidden in order to retain a competitive advantage. There would be a small number of people that would know about it and it would therefore likely be kept secret. Your question implies that the agency also engaged in unethical acts such as technology deals for abduction samples. This would be used to justify keeping the information secret for a long time. The situation would stay this way due to fear despite the information spreading. However, it would eventually reach critical mass as younger generations of people cycled through power. There would be a contradiction of reconciling past behavior with the need to make the information public. History indicates that several factions would probably exist to resolve this contradiction. I speculate that the two factions would be

1. Full disclosure
2. Controlled release of info

(2) would result in muddying the waters and the need to disclose by (1) would create conflict. I think this would result in a lot of arguing, hate, and conflict that we presently see in the world over far less trivial matters. This would also likely create a sense of community and compassion once we got through our initial bickering.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

Government coverup = Convenient way for believers to excuse the reason behind no tangible evidence in the 65+ year popularity of UFO/alien phenomenon. "Government has it all, that's why no one can prove it"

At least one can PROVE there is a government coverup regarding the subject. We can't prove it was alien spacecraft, but we can certainly prove the government has consistently lied and covered things up regarding the subject. That isn't a claim, it's a fact. For example, several projects and panels have come to light, after the government said they were no longer interested in investigating the matter. In the Roswell reports, they even officially contradict themselves at least three times in different statements on the matter. The coverup is there, but proving just WHAT they are covering up, is the trick.

Government/military studying the UFO phenomenon in itself, or not revealing they did, doesn't mean there actually is something concrete there. It means there was a concern. In an era of the development of the atomic bomb and the increase of stories of unidentified flying objects in the skies, one being fueled by Kenneth Arnolds "flying saucer" sighting in 1947, naturally the government is going to be concerned. Thereby creating programs to try and understand what and if there is anything in our skies. There's also going to be a level of secrecy with those studies.

As for Roswell. Again, the mindset of the time is one of concern of the Soviet Union's development of atomic bombs. A top secret program such as Project Mogul designed to listen for nuclear bomb testing, did happen. It's a program our government would not want to be revealed. A crash of one of these projects and the following "confusion" as to what it was, is a clever diversion to the actual facts.

reply to post by samstone11


Does anybody else think that "irrefutable" disclosure for controversial topics is nearly impossible? As an example, consider the Boston Marathon bombing. You wouldn't think there would be controversy about whether or not it happened, but there is a vocal minority that believe it was all staged. It would seem that, as a society, it is difficult to agree on the facts. Imagine a scenario where the world is exposed to the existence of alien life. The bombing doesn't even contain 1% of the intrigue and confusion that has plagued the UFO community.

I believe that even if they did the proverbial White-House-lawn landing people would still argue, plot, and scheme. Finding the truth through that mess would likely be 100 times harder than it is now because it would be so emotionally charged. Their intentions would be a major question and any spin doctors that wanted to ply their trade would have a wealth of fear and confusion at their disposal.

I think we would be far better off spending our efforts trying to mature and help one another. At least we would be on firmer footing if such an event did ever happen.

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed thinking about the questions you raised.