Research Discussion: For Those Who Don't Understand Why There Is A UFO Coverup

For Those Who Don't Understand Why There Is A UFO Coverup
Posts: 21

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Andrew W
2009-11-12 02:00:03 EST
Understanding UFO Secrecy in the 21st Century

by Steven M. Greer M.D.

http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html

Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear and overwhelming: It
has not been difficult to make a compelling case for the reality of UFOs per
se. What is a greater challenge is elucidating the architecture of secrecy
related to UFOs (see the exposition of this matter contained in the paper
entitled "Unacknowledged" by this author). But the greatest challenge is
explaining the 'why'. Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
government within the government? Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
view?

Over the past few years I have had the responsibility of briefing senior
government and scientific leaders both in the US and abroad on the
UFO/Extraterrestrial subject.

The evidence regarding this subject is clear and overwhelming: It has not
been difficult to make a compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
What is a greater challenge is elucidating the architecture of secrecy
related to UFOs (see the exposition of this matter contained in the paper
entitled "Unacknowledged" by this author). But the greatest challenge is
explaining the 'why'. Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
government within the government? Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
view?

The 'what' or evidence is complex but manageable. The 'how' or nature of the
secret programs is more difficult, much more complex and Byzantine. But the
'why' - the reason behind the secrecy'- is the most challenging problem of
all. There is not a single answer to this question, but rather numerous
inter-related reasons for such extraordinary secrecy. Our investigations and
interviews with dozens of top - secret witnesses who have been within such
programs have enabled us to understand the reasons behind this secrecy. They
range from the fairly obvious and straight-forward to the really bizarre.
Here, I wish to share some key points regarding this secrecy, why it has
been imposed and why it is so difficult for the controlling interests within
covert programs to reverse policy and allow disclosure.

In The Beginning

In the early days of the ET/UFO phenomena, military, intelligence and
industrial interests had concerns regarding the nature of the phenomena,
whether it originated from our human adversaries and once it was determined
to be extraterrestrial, how the public would react.

In the 1930s and 1940s this was no small matter: If these UFOs were of
terrestrial origin, they would be evidence of an earthly adversary with
technological devices far in advance of US aircraft. And once it was
determined to be extraterrestrial (some quarters knew this prior to the end
of WWII) there were many more questions than answers. To wit: why were the
ET s here? What are their intentions? How do the devices travel at such
fantastic speeds and through the vastness of space? How might these
technologies be applied to the human situation -both in war and in peace?
How would the public react to this knowledge? What effect would the
disclosure of these facts have on human belief systems? Political and social
systems?

>From the late 1940s through the early 1950s, a concerted effort was made to
figure out the basic science and technologies behind these spacecraft,
primarily through the direct study and reverse-engineering of the retrieved
extraterrestrial objects from New Mexico and elsewhere. It was immediately
recognized that these objects were using laws of physics and applied
technologies far in advance of internal combustion engines, vacuum tubes and
the like. In the climate of the Cold War and in a world where a relatively
minor advantage technologically could tilt the balance of power in the
nuclear arms race, this was no small matter.

Indeed, the theme of human geo-political dysfunction appears as a recurring
feature of the secrecy related to UFOs - up to the present hour. More on
this later.

>From the Wilbur Smith top secret Canadian government document of 1950, we
know that this subject was held in greater secrecy than even the development
of the hydrogen bomb. There was a tremendous effort underway by the late
1940s to study extraterrestrial hardware, figure out how it operated and see
what human applications might be made from such discoveries. Even then, the
project dealing with this subject was extraordinarily covert.

It became much more so by the early 1950s when substantial progress was made
on some of the basic physics behind the ET craft energy and propulsion
systems. The best we can estimate, it was then that the entire project
became increasingly 'black' or unacknowledged.

The compartmentalization of the project dealing with UFOs was exponentially
increased by the early 1950s when it was realized what it was that these
covert projects actually had: Devices displaying physics and energy systems
which - if disclosed - would forever alter life on earth.

By the Eisenhower era, the UFO/ET projects were increasingly compartmented
away from legal, constitutional chain-of-command oversight and control. This
means that -while we know from witness testimony that Eisenhower knew of the
ET craft - the president ( and similar leaders in the UK and elsewhere) were
increasingly left out of the loop. Such senior elected and appointed leaders
were confronted with (as Eisenhower called it) a sophisticated
military-industrial complex with labyrinthine compartmented projects which
were more and more out of their control and oversight. From direct witness
testimony we know that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton were
frustrated by their attempts to penetrate such projects.

This is also true of senior congressional leaders and investigators, foreign
leaders and UN leadership. This is indeed an equal opportunity exclusion
project - it does not matter how high your rank or office, if you are not
deemed necessary to the project, you are not going to know about it. Period.

Contrary to popular myth, since the 1960s concern over some type of public
panic when faced with the fact that we are not alone in the universe has not
been a major reason for the secrecy. Those in the know -notwithstanding the
fantastic tales spun in UFO circles and on the X-Files -understand that fear
of hostile ET s has also not been a significant factor. While there has been
continued confusion in some covert circles over the ultimate purpose behind
the ET phenomena, we know of no knowledgeable insiders who regard the ET s
as a hostile threat.

By the 1960s - and certainly by the 1990s - the world was very familiar with
the concept of space travel and the popular science - fiction industry had
thoroughly indoctrinated the masses with the idea of ET s from far away
being a possibility. So why the continued secrecy?

The Cold War is over. People would hardly be shocked to find out that we are
not alone in the universe ( the majority of people already believe this - in
fact most people believe the UFOs are real). Besides, what could be more
shocking than to live through the latter half of the 20th century with
thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed at every major city in the world? If we
can handle that, surely we can handle the idea that ET s are real.

The facile explanations of fear, panic, shock and the like do not suffice to
justify a level of secrecy so deep that even the President and his CIA
Director could be denied access to the information.

Story continues: Page 2. http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy2.html

Main page:
http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html


--
If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned enough.
If you believe something too much then you have the same problem.



Sir Gilligan Horry
2009-11-12 02:17:12 EST
On Nov 12, 8:00 pm, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
wrote:
> Understanding UFO Secrecy in the 21st Century
>
> by Steven M. Greer M.D.
>
> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>

It's busy OUT THERE by a trillion X trillion x trillion X trillion
plus a few extra trillion events.

Enjoy!

And as the movie said behind me...
"You Can Be Very Sure Of That".

____________________________

Never Fear... Old Horry is Always Here!


_____________________________






JTEM
2009-11-12 04:18:41 EST

"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:

> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>
> Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear
> and overwhelming: It has not been difficult to make a
> compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.

I have to disagree. Not only do I find the case less than
compelling, I catch myself forcing back the laughter at
the opposing view.

"Photographic" evidence is meaningless, all of it suffering
from one of two flaws. They are "Too good" and "Too bad."

Most "Photographic evidence" is so bad that it can either
be just about anything or nothing. We just can't tell anything
for sure, not from the poor photos. The rest of the "Photographic
Evidence" is too good. The craft are so big, so clearly discerned
that the fact that thousands didn't report them defies all
explanation.

An example of this latter category was a supposed "UFO"
hoovering outside of an apartment area. Such an event
simply could not take place in any area sufficiently urbanized
to supposed a high-rise apartment building.

The eyewitness accounts are even worse. I mean, those few
which actually exists. Go listen to "Coast to Coast AM" and
the people peddling UFO hype, and one thing soon becomes
clear: The /Claims/ of witnesses far exceed their actual
numbers.

What does that mean? UFO nuts will often tell tall tales about
a crash here or a sighting there -- all duly witnessed by large
numbers of credible citizens. What's missing is the actual
citizens who supposedly witnessed events.

In case you're still not getting it...

If I claim to have seen a UFO and that ten other people were
with me at the time -- all doctors, lawyers, college professors
and police officers -- and that they all saw it too, amongst
UFO nuts this would count as 11 witnesses (me plus the 10
I said were with me). Here on this planet though, all you've
really got is one (and only one) person making a whole bunch
of unsubstantiated claims.

Not that there aren't "eye witnesses."

http://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ron-paul-screwball.jpg

> Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
> government within the government?

If those clue impaired, the above is a fallacious argument.
Effectively what it's claiming is that the denial of their
view ("UFOs exist") is proof that they are right.

If that was too subtle for you...

Everything is proof of their position. There is literally nothing
the government could say that would dissuade them.

"Look! They deny everything! That proves I'm right!"

> Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
> view?

Ditto.



Saint Isadore Patron Saint Of The Internet
2009-11-13 02:23:00 EST
On Nov 12, 1:18 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> >http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>
> > Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear
> > and overwhelming: It has not been difficult to make a
> > compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
>
> I have to disagree. Not only do I find the case less than
> compelling, I catch myself forcing back the laughter at
> the opposing view.
>
> "Photographic" evidence is meaningless, all of it suffering
> from one of two flaws. They are "Too good" and "Too bad."
>
> Most "Photographic evidence" is so bad that it can either
> be just about anything or nothing. We just can't tell anything
> for sure, not from the poor photos. The rest of the "Photographic
> Evidence" is too good. The craft are so big, so clearly discerned
> that the fact that thousands didn't report them defies all
> explanation.
>
> An example of this latter category was a supposed "UFO"
> hoovering outside of an apartment area. Such an event
> simply could not take place in any area sufficiently urbanized
> to supposed a high-rise apartment building.
>
> The eyewitness accounts are even worse. I mean, those few
> which actually exists. Go listen to "Coast to Coast AM" and
> the people peddling UFO hype, and one thing soon becomes
> clear:  The  /Claims/  of witnesses far exceed their actual
> numbers.
>
> What does that mean?  UFO nuts will often tell tall tales about
> a crash here or a sighting there -- all duly witnessed by large
> numbers of credible citizens. What's missing is the actual
> citizens who supposedly witnessed events.
>
> In case you're still not getting it...
>
> If I claim to have seen a UFO and that ten other people were
> with me at the time -- all doctors, lawyers, college professors
> and police officers -- and that they all saw it too, amongst
> UFO nuts this would count as 11 witnesses (me plus the 10
> I said were with me). Here on this planet though, all you've
> really got is one (and only one) person making a whole bunch
> of unsubstantiated claims.
>
> Not that there aren't "eye witnesses."
>
> http://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ron-paul-screwball.jpg
>
> > Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
> > government within the government?
>
> If those clue impaired, the above is a fallacious argument.
> Effectively what it's claiming is that the denial of their
> view ("UFOs exist") is proof that they are right.
>
> If that was too subtle for you...
>
> Everything is proof of their position. There is literally nothing
> the government could say that would dissuade them.
>
> "Look!  They deny everything!  That proves I'm right!"
>
> > Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
> > view?
>
> Ditto.

Horse SHIT!

Andrew W
2009-11-13 22:02:41 EST
JTEM wrote:
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>>
>> Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear
>> and overwhelming: It has not been difficult to make a
>> compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
>
> I have to disagree. Not only do I find the case less than
> compelling, I catch myself forcing back the laughter at
> the opposing view.
>
> "Photographic" evidence is meaningless, all of it suffering
> from one of two flaws. They are "Too good" and "Too bad."
>
> Most "Photographic evidence" is so bad that it can either
> be just about anything or nothing. We just can't tell anything
> for sure, not from the poor photos. The rest of the "Photographic
> Evidence" is too good. The craft are so big, so clearly discerned
> that the fact that thousands didn't report them defies all
> explanation.
>

Actually there are many cases where scores of people reported large objects,
some of them police officers etc.

>
> An example of this latter category was a supposed "UFO"
> hoovering outside of an apartment area. Such an event
> simply could not take place in any area sufficiently urbanized
> to supposed a high-rise apartment building.
>
> The eyewitness accounts are even worse. I mean, those few
> which actually exists. Go listen to "Coast to Coast AM" and
> the people peddling UFO hype, and one thing soon becomes
> clear: The /Claims/ of witnesses far exceed their actual
> numbers.
>

The eyewitness accounts of airline pilots, airforce pilots, astronaughts
etc. are very credible.

>
> What does that mean? UFO nuts will often tell tall tales about
> a crash here or a sighting there -- all duly witnessed by large
> numbers of credible citizens. What's missing is the actual
> citizens who supposedly witnessed events.
>

I don't know what you're talking about. Most of the witnesses are available
for interview to this day.
They are still being interviewed on many radio stations and documentaries
(search online) and include professional people mentioned above.
You obviously only watch the six o'clock news like the rest of the sheeple.

>
> In case you're still not getting it...
>
> If I claim to have seen a UFO and that ten other people were
> with me at the time -- all doctors, lawyers, college professors
> and police officers -- and that they all saw it too, amongst
> UFO nuts this would count as 11 witnesses (me plus the 10
> I said were with me). Here on this planet though, all you've
> really got is one (and only one) person making a whole bunch
> of unsubstantiated claims.
>
> Not that there aren't "eye witnesses."
>
> http://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ron-paul-screwball.jpg
>
>> Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
>> government within the government?
>
> If those clue impaired, the above is a fallacious argument.
> Effectively what it's claiming is that the denial of their
> view ("UFOs exist") is proof that they are right.
>
> If that was too subtle for you...
>
> Everything is proof of their position. There is literally nothing
> the government could say that would dissuade them.
>
> "Look! They deny everything! That proves I'm right!"

>
>> Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
>> view?
>
> Ditto.
>

You obviously didn't read the posted document which explains the
government's and military's numerous reasons for the cover-up.
They still have several reasons to continue the cover-up. Today its becoming
more and more a case of extreme embarrassment if they did admit to all their
past lies and subterfuges.
Originally it was just a military security concern because they thought
Russia or Germany had some kind of new weapon. Then it was the public panic
issue. Then it was the desire to grab the ET technology to make better war
weapons.
It has just become a huge mess that cannot be let out of the bag - maybe
never.
But of course for the ignorant majority which includes the debunkers here it
all seems incredible that our governments would want to cover up such a
thing.


--
If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned
enough. If you believe something too much then you have the same
problem.



JTEM
2009-11-14 15:30:02 EST

"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:

> Actually there are many cases where scores of people
> reported large objects, some of them police officers etc.

You're kind of proving my point here, making the exact kind
of claim I described without the slightest proof to back it
up.

> The eyewitness accounts of airline pilots, airforce pilots,
> astronaughts etc. are very credible.

You mean they really did see something they couldn't
identify?

> You obviously didn't read the posted document which
> explains the government's and military's numerous
> reasons for the cover-up.

....which is every bit as valid as it would be if I posted
your reasons for inventing the idea of a cover-up.

Seriously, can't you see this? It's even more transparent
than your anecdotal evidence that's missing the anecdotes.

> They still have several reasons to continue the cover-up.

Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
me proves I'm right."

That's not an argument, that's a disorder!

Andrew W
2009-11-14 16:34:08 EST
JTEM wrote:
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Actually there are many cases where scores of people
>> reported large objects, some of them police officers etc.
>
> You're kind of proving my point here, making the exact kind
> of claim I described without the slightest proof to back it
> up.
>

You are welcome to check the reports and testimonies yourself. They're all
over the net.
Do you expect them to be delivered to you and dropped in your lap?

>
>> The eyewitness accounts of airline pilots, airforce pilots,
>> astronaughts etc. are very credible.
>
> You mean they really did see something they couldn't
> identify?
>

More than that. The objects in many cases made high speed manurers that show
a high level of technology and intelligence.
Some of the objects were of an enormous size.

>
>> You obviously didn't read the posted document which
>> explains the government's and military's numerous
>> reasons for the cover-up.
>
> ....which is every bit as valid as it would be if I posted
> your reasons for inventing the idea of a cover-up.
>
> Seriously, can't you see this? It's even more transparent
> than your anecdotal evidence that's missing the anecdotes.
>

You think I and others have reasons for inventing cover-ups?
Who's crazy now?
Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of documented
evidence for the government and military cover-up campaigns?

>
>> They still have several reasons to continue the cover-up.
>
> Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
> me proves I'm right."
>
> That's not an argument, that's a disorder!
>

You are very ignorant about this subject and your government.
Bob Lazar and others have seen the recovered craft.
Many including high ranking officers have seen craft in flight.
The problem here is that you and others simply can't handle the higher
implications of what all this entails, so you base all your beliefs only on
what you can handle, which is that what your five senses can detect and what
mainstream science has confirmed is all there is and nothing more.
And you refuse to look at the mountains of data coming in every day from
around the world because it will take you out of your comfort zone.

--
If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned
enough. If you believe something too much then you have the same
problem.



HVAC
2009-11-14 17:02:15 EST

"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:4aff2251$0$16741$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> More than that. The objects in many cases made high speed manurers that
> show a high level of technology and intelligence.

You mean they APPEARED to have "made high speed manurers" (sic)


> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.


You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
have an enormous size.


> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of documented
> evidence for the government and military cover-up campaigns?


Wow! What a revelation, OUR government is actually
hiding SECRET aircraft and covering up sightings of same?

Call CNN



Andrew W
2009-11-14 17:27:38 EST
HVAC wrote:
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aff2251$0$16741$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> More than that. The objects in many cases made high speed manurers
>> that show a high level of technology and intelligence.
>
> You mean they APPEARED to have "made high speed manurers" (sic)
>

Spell checker mishap.

That's your opinion.
Its your opinion against that of trained pilots etc.
But of course since you weren't there to see what they saw your opinion
doesn't count for much against the numerous pilots and ground observers.

>
>> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>
>
> You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
> have an enormous size.
>

No. Trained eyes saw large solid objects. You're welcome to check the
reports.

>
>> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of
>> documented evidence for the government and military cover-up
>> campaigns?
>
>
> Wow! What a revelation, OUR government is actually
> hiding SECRET aircraft and covering up sightings of same?
>
> Call CNN
>

How ignorant are you?
Do you think the military can do its job if it tells everyone everything?
Secrecy is how a military force works.
How do you think the west defeated Germany? (look up the cracking of the
enigma machine).
What do you think the cold war was?

--
If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned
enough. If you believe something too much then you have the same
problem.



JTEM
2009-11-15 00:58:00 EST

"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:

> You are welcome to check the reports and testimonies
> yourself.

Okay. Just did. What did I miss?

> > You mean they really did see something they couldn't
> > identify?
>
> More than that.

They saw two things that they couldn't identify?

> The objects in many cases made high speed manurers

Pure conjecture.

> that show a high level of technology and intelligence.

Or a lot of totally natural bouncing around on an atmosphere
which is anything but "Smooth as glass."

> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.

Who held the measuring tape?

> You think I and others have reasons for inventing cover-ups?

Absolutely. Your UFO claims imply a cover up. You could
even say that your claims require a cover-up. See, If craft
from another planet are real, and so prevalent, the only way
everyone on the planet wouldn't be accepting them as fact
would be if the governments of every major nation are
actively engaged in an enormous cover-up.

> Who's crazy now?

Oh, you're making it too easy...

> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the
> scores of documented evidence for the government
> and military cover-up campaigns?

Okay, just did. What is it you find so compelling?

> > Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
> > me proves I'm right."
>
> > That's not an argument, that's a disorder!

> You are very ignorant about this subject and your
> government.

Judging from the volume of hard information you've posted
here ("nadda"), I don't think the problem is so much
"Ignorance" as it is "Imagination."

> Bob Lazar and others have seen the recovered craft.

Bob Lazar is a tool who made a pile of cash selling UFO
mumbo-jumbo to the gullible.

> Many including high ranking officers have seen craft in flight.

Insert an anecdote somewhere in the above and you'd have
something that qualified as "anecdotal evidence."

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron