Government Secrecy, Justified or Not?

[BrandonD]

Hi, I've been meaning to write about an idea put forth by many people: The idea that the government secrecy regarding ufos is benevolent and somehow justified. This idea that they are protecting us with this secrecy, because the truth is just too hard to handle and society would turn upside down.

I can't say whether this is the legitimate motivation for secrecy or not (though my common-sense opinion is that secrecy is being held only because it benefits those keeping the secrets).

But what I can say is that to support this idea of "benevolent lying" is an immoral and cowardly position, and I can't see how it can be condoned by any thinking person. These thoughts first occurred to me when I listened to the Art Bell show with John Lear and they both agreed that if they were in charge, they would continue the secrecy. I was shocked that people can honestly think this way.

Here is a vaguely analogous situation to illustrate: Imagine a city in the 1900s. All the black people live on one side of the tracks (the crappy side), and all white people live on the other side (the nice side). They seldom interact with one another, and are generally fearful of each other. This unfair situation has been further bolstered by dozens of cultural myths which have been propagated over time. The races actually believe that they are essentially different from one another, and cannot live together peacefully.

What if some educated men in positions of leadership discover that black people and white people are the same, and there is no good reason for the segregation and inequality that exists?

These men discuss the issue among themselves: Should something be done about this situation, or should it remain as it is?

Some of the men say no. "Do you have any idea what would happen if we publicly stated these facts and persuaded black and white people to live together? They fear and hate one another, they would kill each other, there would be panic in the streets. Right now, at least things are running smoothly."

Other men say, "Yes there might be panic in the streets, for a while. But only for a while, and so it should be done in the interest of setting right what is wrong."

With this scenario I'm not trying to illustrate an idea that men and aliens can live together; I have no idea if that's true. I'm giving an example of our officials being aware of a certain situation, and also realizing that changing this situation for the better will initially create social chaos.

In this way I feel it's similar to the ufo phenomenon. There is absolutely no valid "benevolent" reason to keep this secrecy. Even if people can't handle it, even if certain religions crumble, even if there's panic in the streets. Just as in the segregation analogy, some social upsets are inevitable and unavoidable because they are the results of living under incorrect conditions for such a long time.

Ok done with my rant, I'm interested in any other thoughts on the subject because I haven't actually discussed it with anyone else.

 

[fitzbew88]

There is absolutely no valid "benevolent" reason to keep this secrecy.

What if aliens told Truman: "If you tell anybody about us we are going to come back and exterminate you all."

Wouldn't that be a good reason for lying? I can't think of a more benevolent reason.

Why might such a threat be made? Undisputable acceptance of ET reality would ruin the experiment.

 

[BrandonD]

What if aliens told Truman: "If you tell anybody about us we are going to come back and exterminate you all."

Wouldn't that be a good reason for lying? I can't think of a more benevolent reason.

Why might such a threat be made? Undisputable acceptance of ET reality would ruin the experiment.

Ha, you're right... I can't argue with that one.

 

[rpjmartin]

Hmmm, it is hard to think of good reasons to keep something secret. But offical secrets there are and whoever decided that certain things should be kept secret could rationalise their decision. I refer you to:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-381.pdf

"Examples of potential SAPs include,
but are not limited to—
(1) A specific technology with potential for weaponization that gives the United States a significant technical lead or
tactical advantage over potential adversaries.
(2) Sensitive technology or unique capability especially vulnerable to foreign intelligence exploitation without
special protection.
(3) An emerging technology, proposed operation, or intelligence activity risking the compromise of other SAPs.
(4) Exposure of sensitive activities that could jeopardize the lives of U.S. citizens.
(5) Extremely sensitive activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad, which are
planned and executed so that the role of the U.S. Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly.
(6) Methods used to acquire foreign technology or equipment.
(7) Sensitive support to DOD and non-DOD agencies. "

Now, looking at this list and making the assumption that possibly some part of corporate America studies ET tech, I think I could safely argue that a retrieved piece of ET hardware could legitimately be placed in at least one of the above categories. Perhaps some hardware is considered just too damn dangerous to acknowledge. After all, if I know, then my enemy also knows.

I'm not saying that the entire UFO field should be classified super double top secret but once even a simple acknowledgment is made that "they" exist and are here now, the box is opened. Sooner or later, the hardware question is going to come up. Has there been a weapon system built that has not been used? It goes without saying that if some Army SAP is studying ET hardware, it will be for weapons development.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

There is absolutely no valid "benevolent" reason to keep this secrecy. Even if people can't handle it, even if certain religions crumble, even if there's panic in the streets.

That's the idea that always irks me, hearing people say that the secrecy should be maintained because the truth (assuming it's ET) would shatter our social institutions. "What would people believe in," so the argument runs. "Our sense of who we are in the grand scheme of things would radically change. Religions would fall."

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that this would be a good thing. Whatever easily falls deserves to be pushed.

 

[tommyball]

There is absolutely no valid "benevolent" reason to keep this secrecy. Even if people can't handle it, even if certain religions crumble, even if there's panic in the streets.

That's the idea that always irks me, hearing people say that the secrecy should be maintained because the truth (assuming it's ET) would shatter our social institutions. "What would people believe in," so the argument runs. "Our sense of who we are in the grand scheme of things would radically change. Religions would fall."

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that this would be a good thing. Whatever easily falls deserves to be pushed.

Well put.

If we accept that this secrecy has been in place since the late 1940s then I can accept the implementation of a policy of secrecy in light of the historical context, specifically the then recent end of WWII, the coming Cold War and the introduction of nuclear weapons, even though it was made out of fear more than any benevolent intentions.

However, I no longer feel that it is justified.

Whether disclosure would reveal a truth in line with the ETH, the EDH or a combination of the two, no one can predict nor place a moral expectation of good or bad upon a revelation that would drastically expand our scope of reality.

So what if religions fall? Not to provoke a religious debate but I might suggest that a massive paradigm shift in religion is overdue. Tradition has its time and place but one could argue that in today's world, the fact that so many people still cling to religious beliefs that are thousands of years old has caused much conflict. If religion was faced with something new to absorb and comprehend, then perhaps it would evolve into a more beneficial institution.

Some technology might be too dangerous, and in specific cases some things will remain highly classified. If ET threatened annihilation if Truman blabbed... maybe they should turn up their stealth shields more.... I don't know.

-todd.

 

[Paul Kimball]

My take... [original at http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-embargo-good.html]

Truth Embargo? Good!

You often hear pro-ETH UFO researchers in the West state something along the lines of, "It's time to end the cover-up of the ET presence on Earth - it might have made sense 60 years ago, but we're a more mature society now, and we could handle the news". Stan Friedman has said words to that general effect at almost every lecture I've ever heard him give, for example.

I think that they're wrong. I think if we were really faced with certain proof of the existence of ET (like a flying saucer landing on the White House lawn), things would pretty much go to hell in short order. The view that things would be just fine (a few hiccups, perhaps, but we would adjust quickly) is informed by an educated, middle to upper class, very Western way of looking at the world - in other words, guys like Stan. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the planet's population is not educated to the degree someone like Stan is, and they're not members of the middle or upper classes, and they don't live in the relative comfort (both physical and ideological) of postmodernist and largely secular Western society.

The view of people like Stan that we're ready for the knowledge of ET's existence (should ET exist and be here) is also at odds with human history, where every time an advanced society came into contact with a less advanced society, there was chaos, with the end result that the less advanced society suffered greatly as a result of that contact.

I think Stuart Miller, in a recent post at his blog Alien Worlds Magazine, hits upon the more likely outcome. Here is an excerpt:

"My opinion is that there would be substantial elements of world wide hysteria which couldn’t be ignored, for it would inevitably impinge on the calmer elements. The most un-endearing quality within the psyche of the human spirit is arrogance. Our world is full of strutting little despots, be it militarily, politically, administratively, the religious realm, or even in our personal lives. People full of their own self importance and power, without humility or empathy, who would seize the opportunity to terrify and manipulate. Martial law in some quarters would be a real possibility. After all, this would be an event of a life time."

Bingo - and as Stuart notes later in the column, this is what would probably happen if we just got a signal from SETI. It would be far worse if ET was actually here, and even worse again if ET was hostile.

Guys like Steven Bassett talk about a "paradigm shift" should the "truth embargo" ever be lifted. They're absolutely right, but for the wrong reasons. They see a sunnier future for humanity - a leap into a brave new world, where we would happily walk hand in hand with our space brothers and sisters, and all would suddenly be fine on Planet Earth.

Like Stuart, I see a different result, because I've spent years studying the world and its people, not as we might like them to be, but as they actually are. If the "government" is really covering up the "truth" about an ET presence here on Earth, I say "good - keep it up". Because as I look around, the truth is that we're not ready for it. We're not even close. And to reveal it now would be as disastrous as it would have been sixty years ago - perhaps more so.

We don't need alien "gods" to come down and solve all of our problems - we need to solve them ourselves. Only then, when all people are capable of seeing the world like Stan Friedman sees it will we be ready for First Contact, with any ET species, either here or "out there".

If ET really does exist, and is smart enough to get here from there, and is as benevolent as some people think, then I'm pretty sure they see things the same way I do, and that's why they choose not to reveal themselves. And if they aren't that benevolent, and resemble more an ET version of Cortez, then eventually we're all screwed, aren't we?

Does this mean that people should stop investigating UFO cases? No. Does it mean people should stop writing and talking about UFOs? Of course not. Because at the moment, the idea of ET UFOs are like the idea of God - maybe they exist, maybe they don't, who can say? You can believe if you want, or not. You can believe in one type of alien, or another, or none at all. You can explore other theories if you want. You can ignore the whole subject, as the vast majority of people do. You can even pretend that you're practising "citizen diplomacy" with aliens if you want. To each their own.

You can even pester the "government" for the "truth", but you'll find that it's a pretty futile slog, because they either don't know the "truth" (which is the far more likely answer, in my opinion), or, if they do and the truth is "ET is here", they aren't going to reveal it, for the reasons outlined above.

Good reasons.

Paul

 

[CapnG]

That's the idea that always irks me, hearing people say that the secrecy should be maintained because the truth (assuming it's ET) would shatter our social institutions. "What would people believe in," so the argument runs. "Our sense of who we are in the grand scheme of things would radically change. Religions would fall."

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that this would be a good thing. Whatever easily falls deserves to be pushed.

I'd wager you won't think that way if it crushes you when it falls...

I voted "yes" but it's not really an accurate question. I think the secrecy is necessary but "justified" implies I agree with it; I don't. It's a lesser of two evils debate, what would you rather have: the obstruction of truth or a societal implosion?

The fact of the matter is Chuckles, most people can't handle it when they forget to return their videos on time and have to pay a late fee, how in the hell could they possibly handle something as huge as reality of an "other" in our midst?

 

[Don Keyhoe-Ti]

My take... [original at http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-embargo-good.html]

Truth Embargo? Good! If the "government" is really covering up the "truth" about an ET presence here on Earth, I say "good - keep it up". Because as I look around, the truth is that we're not ready for it. We're not even close. And to reveal it now would be as disastrous as it would have been sixty years ago - perhaps more so.

You say this yet you make interesting and quite convincing documentaries that could lead many people to believe that there is an ET presence here on Earth! What do you think you are, some sort of terrorist?

 

[Don Keyhoe-Ti]

I'm quite certain that governments are hiding quite a lot that they know about ufo's, although I doubt they grasp the whole story. All the obfuscatory swamp gas they've pumped out on many occasions has me pretty much convinced of this. In fact, their bumbling and story-swapping reminds me a lot of astronaut Major Tony Nelson trying to hide his Jeanie! (And anyone who's familiar with ufo history and doesn't see signs of cover-up reminds me a lot of Doctor Bellows. )

Now whether or not ET/UFO secrecy is justified or not depends very much on what is being kept secret and why. Now these things are of course secret also, so it's hard to judge definitively. I can certainly imagine scenarios where secrecy is vital and ufologists are actually doing a lot of harm, or trying to. I can also imagine scenarios where the secrecy is maintained solely for nefarious reasons, which would make the ufonuts pretty heroic, if quixotic. But the specific reasons are secret, so who knows.

But my overall answer is
a) Trust must be earned, and trust can be lost. I can't take a "Father knows best" attitude to organisations with a track record of murder, mayhem, and constant constant LYING!

b) It's time to roll the dice. Between Peak Oil, Financial collapse (just starting) global poverty, ecological meltdown, rampant corruption, and just nothing good on tv these days.... we're on the hot rails to hell as it is.

It's time to roll the dice.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I'd wager you won't think that way if it crushes you when it falls...

How much?

The way I see it, it's not a question of who or what falls as a result of the truth, whatever that is, coming out. Instead, I think the only way that we'll overcome ourselves, if I may speak in such grandiose terms, is by confronting all aspects of known reality. If the truth tears me down, something stronger and more permanent will take my place.

 

[CapnG]

I'd wager you won't think that way if it crushes you when it falls...

How much?

Nothing but only because:

A) I'm broke
B) It'll probably never happen and
C) If I'm right, I can't collect, what with you having been crushed and all.

 

[musictomyears]

But what I can say is that to support this idea of "benevolent lying" is an immoral and cowardly position, and I can't see how it can be condoned by any thinking person. These thoughts first occurred to me when I listened to the Art Bell show with John Lear and they both agreed that if they were in charge, they would continue the secrecy. I was shocked that people can honestly think this way.

BrandonD, I had to smile when I read the above paragraph, since only last night did I listen to this particular Art Bell show - for the first time, ever. So much for coincidences! I actually think that John Lear is a fascinating character, his professional creds are impeccable. His more outlandish views are based on stuff he was told by people he obviously trusts, not on anything he claims to have experienced himself. But that's quite possibly fodder for another thread.

Coming back to the theme for your thread, and your remark that the "idea of "benevolent lying" is an immoral and cowardly position", let me say that I sympathise with your view, since I naturally resent any kind of secrecy - it doesn't sit well with me. Life is complicated enough as it is, so why add layers of secrecy and, inevitably, lies to it? It seems wrong and "immoral", as you say.

However...

I too have been around the block a few times, and these days I am less certain than ever with regard to what might be best for humanity. I don't actually share the view that, upon disclosure, there would be mayhem in the streets. I can't imagine that, simply because of the release of some information - say, in a globally televised press conference - people in their millions would suddenly go crazy, and run screaming through their villages. Nonsense. The human mind doesn't work like that, quite the opposite. The human mind is sluggish and slow to absorb new information. In fact, information alone has a negligible effect on the masses. Information hitting the uneducated mind is similar to a towel hitting a brick.

For information to move people's minds, hearts and bodies it needs to result in immediate, tangible effects on the individual. If you tell people that there are little green men on Mars, and that they sometimes stop by for a brief visit on their way to the next galaxy, most people will hardly be able to even grasp that concept, but will shrug their shoulders and carry on with their lives regardless. However, if suddenly live aliens were to take their jobs away, or hang out with their wives at every street corner... Now *then* there would be pandemonium. In fact, doesn't this scenario sound familiar?

The point I'm trying to make is that official "disclosure" would most likely be met with one big, global yawn. In fact, I can back that up with recent events: The disclosure press conference in the US, and Larry King's show reporting on it. Where is the outrage, where the infuriated mob, armed with pitchforks, guns and crucifixes? Exactly. Didn't happen. Larry King's show will be forgotten faster than yesterday's weather.

I have no doubt that a government cover-up is in place. I also don't doubt for a second that anybody getting too close to the truth - which really is about advanced technology, not little green men - puts their lives at risk. I've seen how that works. But this is only possible because of widespread apathy in populations around the world. People's minds are corrupted by an avalanche of meaningless entertainment, and people's bodies are corrupted by poisonous fast-food. Only when these fundaments change, do I see a chance for educating the masses about UFOs and aliens.

Ultimately, I don't think that we even have a choice. As long as the ETs keep themselves in the background - probably for the reasons listed above - any attempts at large scale disclosure are bound to fail. Right now, there isn't much to disclose anyway. Should one of the ET races decide to land and set up shop permanently, and for all to see, then disclosure would be inevitable, and would occur. Until then... Enjoy life!

 

[CapnG]

The point I'm trying to make is that official "disclosure" would most likely be met with one big, global yawn. In fact, I can back that up with recent events: The disclosure press conference in the US, and Larry King's show reporting on it. Where is the outrage, where the infuriated mob, armed with pitchforks, guns and crucifixes? Exactly. Didn't happen. Larry King's show will be forgotten faster than yesterday's weather.

Ah yes but why? Because NO ONE BELIEVES THEM. The vast majority of people are in line with James Mcmu-mu. It's not "real" to them. And we all know why, to wit:

People's minds are corrupted by an avalanche of meaningless entertainment, and people's bodies are corrupted by poisonous fast-food. Only when these fundaments change, do I see a chance for educating the masses about UFOs and aliens.

Those fundamentals will NEVER change. And speaking of fundamentals, how do you think the evangelical christian crowd would react to such a reality? Or for even more fun, the radical Islamic folks that are making life oh-so interesting for us right now? These people can't cope with other people's BELIEFS, so I really doubt they could handle something most people don't believe in being presented as FACTS.

I stand by my societal implosion critique.

 

[Astroboy]

I think the real conspiracy of secrets seems to lie less with world governments as it is with aliens. C'mon by all accounts the aliens do not want disclosure. Everytime we fly near them they zoom off. When we meet them they make us forget. They don't tell us where they are from. They don't give us any souvenirs to prove they exist. They don't give us any knowledge or technology that will be beneficial to all mankind.

Do you really think if aliens really wanted disclosure that the US or any other government could stop them? Of course not. They could easily make a public landing in front of news cameras or broadcast a message all over the globe. No government could keep secrets if aliens didn't want them to.

The real question is why would aliens want to stay in the shadows. If we are to assume that aliens do exist then we could conclude that they have been observing our history for a long time. Biblical stories, medieval paintings, and ancient folklore may provide some evidence of this. What would they have observed? Primitive humans who until the last 100 years lacked any advanced technology and who's primary activities include living out of balance with the planets resources and tribal warfare.

Now all this activity is rather inconsequential until some critical things happen. One is the development of nuclear weapons and the other is space faring capability. I don't know about you but if I were the aliens I'd be scared that these little humans may start running amok in the universe. We would most certainly be seen as a threat to our alien neighbors. At around 1945 when the first nuclear weapons tests are conducted aliens start to take a keen interest in our development as evidenced by the spike in UFO sightings.

I believe that aliens want to keep a tight lid on us while carefully monitoring our development. If anything we are in a state of quarantine. At least until it is determined that we are ready for formal public contact.

Looking at most of the planet with it's disparate belief systems and governments it is hard to imagine what the benefits of first contact would be. If aliens give us even the most benign technology we'd more than likely develop a weapon that could be used to destroy ourselves or worse be a threat to the aliens. If they do not give us space faring technology like what they have or other advanced technology then they would be looked upon with resentment and suspicion. If they give us some technology that doesn't threaten them then the only people to benefit from it are the technologically advanced countries like the US who have the economic capability to exploit it. This would create further inequity and instability in the world. Having observed us for a long time they would have seen that throughout human history those who possess advanced technology almost always dominate and exploit other humans.

So when you think about it there really is no upside for the aliens or us so they have no interest in disclosure at this time. In the meantime they will keep a weary eye on us and keep us in our little blue playpen.

Just a theory.

 

[musictomyears]

People's minds are corrupted by an avalanche of meaningless entertainment, and people's bodies are corrupted by poisonous fast-food. Only when these fundaments change, do I see a chance for educating the masses about UFOs and aliens.

Those fundamentals will NEVER change. And speaking of fundamentals, how do you think the evangelical christian crowd would react to such a reality? Or for even more fun, the radical Islamic folks that are making life oh-so interesting for us right now? These people can't cope with other people's BELIEFS, so I really doubt they could handle something most people don't believe in being presented as FACTS.

I stand by my societal implosion critique.

People create their own reality, quite literally. They believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. In the case of religious fundamentalists, they would simply deny the validity of the disclosure, but accuse their respective governments of collusion with the devil. If you get a chance, listen to the Art Bell show mentioned earlier, and listen to what some of the callers had to say. One example is right here, at the beginning:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJU0UmDP-gg

So, yes, if governments were to push their point, and try to force their subjects into accepting the ET reality, there would be some upheaval. I don't dispute that. However, at least in the western world, this would be limited to the actions of a hard core of militant fundamentalists. The majority would simply look the other way and pretend disclosure never happened. For an example, look at how people deal with the global rush from free to surveillance societies. Everybody who is able to read, and stops to think about it for a minute, *knows* that their phones are being tapped, their e-mails are being read, their bank accounts are being scrutinised, and their movements are being monitored by shadowy agencies that act outside the law. Do people really care? If they do, they certainly don't make it public. Never underestimate the human capacity for denial.

The only possible cause for "societal implosion" would be a sustained and global wave of visitations by ETs, coupled with close-up encounters en masse. That would ruffle the feathers of many people. Still, I'm not convinced that the majority wouldn't eventually get over it. People usually adapt to new circumstances, even if they appear horrendous. Think about it: Societies don't break down even in times of war. Humans have the capacity to keep going, regardless of external conditions. Their will to survive is always stronger than their fear of dying - one of the good things one can say about humanity.

 

[musictomyears]

So when you think about it there really is no upside for the aliens or us so they have no interest in disclosure at this time. In the meantime they will keep a weary eye on us and keep us in our little blue playpen.

Just a theory.

This theory is not entirely new. I think it describes the real situation pretty accurately.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Some of the info. is justified for withholding, some of it isn't in my opinion. I went ahead and picked no though, since most of it should be released I think.

 

[rpjmartin]

There is absolutely no valid "benevolent" reason to keep this secrecy. Even if people can't handle it, even if certain religions crumble, even if there's panic in the streets.

That's the idea that always irks me, hearing people say that the secrecy should be maintained because the truth (assuming it's ET) would shatter our social institutions. "What would people believe in," so the argument runs. "Our sense of who we are in the grand scheme of things would radically change. Religions would fall."

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that this would be a good thing. Whatever easily falls deserves to be pushed.

No complaints here if any number of mainstream religions fall into rack and ruin due to confirmed and accepted ET presence. Life would undoubtedly continue. But like virtually every other aspect of 21st century, it is the money that talks. I heard Rich Dolan on a recent Paracast saying that he had spoken to someone who was in the loop a decade ago and they told him that the older guys who had made their money were prepared to let secret out but it was the young up and comers who wanted the secrecy maintained so they could make their money.

That attitude does not surprise me at all. How many times have you heard people moaning that houses are too expensive and they can't get on the ladder...but as soon as they can afford to buy, they just can't wait for the price to rise and rise.

 

[rpjmartin]

Musictomyears,

The masses don't want to be educated. That's one thing I've come to accept over the years. They have their Beckhams, the lottery, Sky TV and shopping to occupy their time with. Why do they habitually buy some piece of tabloid trash every day? Many people these days are actually hostile to education and teachers. It used to sadden me to say this but most people just do not give a flying f*ck about any of this. Now I just don't care they don't care. It's unfortunate I'll grant you but hey, if they prefer to rack up credit card debts buying giant TV sets, they can go ahead.