4-Jan-92 6:19:23-GMT,3524;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA17108; Sat, 4 Jan 92 01:19:19 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10385; Sat, 4 Jan 92 01:19:17 EST Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 01:19:17 EST From: mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <9201040619.AA10385@porthos.rutgers.edu> Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Cc: mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. In-Reply-To: USENET article <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Scott A. Yanoff) writes: Why would the U.S. government hide info regarding UFOs from the public? What would they gain? ... well, there are many levels of answers; here are a few: 1) The US government classifies many things, some for non-obvious reasons (some would argue for no reason at all). The White House food menus are classified ("Secret"), for instance. They might classify it merely because someone decided it should be done. 2) Presuming that crashed and/or retrieved UFOs existed, on a purely planetary level, the government would not want other governments (e.g. Soviet, Iraqi, Libya) to know that the US has "the goodies", or what the goodies are. In this country, with an unsupervised press, to keep things from the bad guys, one must also keep it from one's own people. The government does this with Stealth technology, and spy satellite technology for instance. 3) Other contributors to this list have pointed out the "cultural shock" aspects (to which past terrestrial examples wouldn't hold a candle). Consider the technical aspects (imagine you were a molecular biologist who had been working all your life on a problem, to get close, and then be handed the answer literally from out of the blue -- kind of make you feel like your whole life was a waste, wouildn't it?); the political aspects; even the religious aspects. It might be that the powers-that-be are waiting, holding back such information until the time is right (whenever that is). You might think of this as a sort of a "Prime Directive" in reverse. 4) It might be that there is some sort of threat associated with UFO's (though I tend to doubt this), and such information is being withheld to avoid useless panic and upheaval. 5) The government might keep evidence and documentation (and perhaps even witnesses) secreted in a remote location (descriptions of various Cheyenne-Mountain-like places have surfaced from time to time). The government is certainly capable of construction and operation of facilities that are unknown to the public; underground, on islands, in Alaska, etc.. ... it might seem that some sort of "right to the truth" would override such, but it always depends on your point of view. Secondly, how would they hide this info, without people hearing the truth from other goverments around the world? ... well, it might be that the ONLY crashed/retrieved UFOs were within the USA, in which case there wouldn't be any other government's information to find out. Or, it might be that all governments "in on the secret" are keeping what they have and know to themselves so that other governments don't know (or are not sure) what they've got. Or, it might be that all the governments concerned have agreed amongst themselves not to release whatever is held. All this is not so unplausible. A recent example is the existance of "Ultra", from WWII, whose existance was rumored but unproven until the automatic-declassification-rules came into effect. Charles 4-Jan-92 13:17:13-GMT,583;000000000001 Received: from unlinfo.unl.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16292; Sat, 4 Jan 92 08:17:11 EST Received: by unl.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA28337; Sat, 4 Jan 92 07:17:09 CST Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 07:17:09 CST From: czarbock@unlinfo.unl.edu (carol zarbock) Message-Id: <9201041317.AA28337@unl.edu> To: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors References: <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> What was "Ultra" from WWII? I noticed it in your post. Cheers, Carol 4-Jan-92 16:01:31-GMT,643;000000000001 Received: from ucrmath.ucr.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26721; Sat, 4 Jan 92 11:01:27 EST Received: by ucrmath.ucr.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05877; Sat, 4 Jan 92 07:57:48 PST Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 07:57:48 PST From: xfgk8a@ucrmath.ucr.edu (cs8a student) Message-Id: <9201041557.AA05877@ucrmath.ucr.edu> To: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors In-Reply-To: References: <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> Organization: University of California, Riverside Cc: What was 'Ultra'? Chris xfgk8a@ucrmath.ucr.edu 4-Jan-92 23:30:26-GMT,954;000000000001 Received: from en.ecn.purdue.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06689; Sat, 4 Jan 92 18:30:24 EST Received: by en.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.30jrs) id AA14313; Sat, 4 Jan 92 18:30:18 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 18:30:18 -0500 From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush) Message-Id: <9201042330.AA14313@en.ecn.purdue.edu> To: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors In-Reply-To: References: <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Cc: In article you write: > > All this is not so unplausible. A recent example is the existance >of "Ultra", from WWII, whose existance was rumored but unproven until >the automatic-declassification-rules came into effect. > >Charles What was "Ultra."? Thanks. Greg (lush@ecn.purdue.edu) 6-Jan-92 2:01:27-GMT,3302;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04568; Sun, 5 Jan 92 21:01:22 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03794; Sun, 5 Jan 92 21:01:01 EST Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 21:01:00 EST From: Charles To: lush@ecn.purdue.edu, czarbock@unlinfo.unl.edu, xfgk8a@ucrmath.ucr.edu Cc: mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Subject: "Ultra" Message-Id: Hi, (Just sending the answer to the same question to you all.) ... Just before WWII, a Polish agent presented British Intelligence with an "Enigma machine"; the diplomatic/military traffic encoding machine used by the Germans. The Germans did not realize that the machine was gone (I can't recall the exact circumstances, but the cover of the theft was reasonable - the Germans were convinced it had been destroyed.) Anyway, the coding machine used a complex scheme to encode messages (the machine could be set up to encode messages many different ways, and were the encoding scheme was changed every day), and so having the stolen Enigma did not really help, since the Brits could not know what the settings were from day to day, and the number of permutations possible were too high to permit simple try-this/try-that techniques. So, a group of cryptologists and mathemeticians were installed at Benchley Park (exact spelling of the place probably wrong - my source (see below) isn't handy), and ordered to come up with a way to decode Enigma messages. This project was known as "Ultra", and its existance and work were an extremely closely guarded secret. (Like I said, the project was not declassified until the 1970's.) The group, including Alan Turing, eventually created an analog computer to run code combinations to try and decode German traffic, with a 'hit' rate of around 20%, as I recall. The information so gained was then evaluated as to its value, and also for the danger to the project if the information was given to British and American military forces in the field. (If the Germans got wind that their codes were being broken, they would simply change their coding scheme entirely, and all the value of "Ultra" would be lost.) Among other unreleased information was the German air-raid on Coventry, resulting in significant loss of civilian life and property. Whenever "Ultra" intelligence was given to military commanders, its source was disguised, and officers "in the field" with knowledge of Ultra had suicide orders to avoid capture. Anyway, that's the story. The upshot is that a number of German defeats against the Western Allies are in part attributable to foreknowledge by the Allies of German intentions and activities. (For instance, many of the cargo convoys on the way to Rommel were attacked and sunk due to foreknowledge by the Royal Navy of ships, and routes, Rommel's El Alamein attack was tipped off to Montgomery, so he handily defeated it.) The best book by far on this matter is Anthony Cave Brown's "Bodyguard of Lies". (The title comes from a quote of Churchill, "Where truth goes she must have a bodyguard of lies.") Another Brown book, "C", about British Spymaster Sir Stuart Graham Menzies, is excellent as well. Hope this helps, Charles 6-Jan-92 20:18:57-GMT,1025;000000000011 Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA20970; Mon, 6 Jan 92 15:18:38 EST Received: from MCDCHG.CHG.MCD.MOT.COM by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23992; Mon, 6 Jan 92 15:18:29 EST Received: by mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.24.1 #24.3) id ; Mon, 6 Jan 92 15:18 EST Received: from tellab1.TELLABS.COM by tellab5.tellabs.com (4.1/smail2.5/10-21-91) id AA28218; Mon, 6 Jan 92 12:12:03 CST Received: by tellab1.TELLABS.COM (5.61/4.7) id AA20132; Mon, 6 Jan 92 12:12:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 12:12:03 -0600 From: ragusa@tellab1.tellabs.com (Marc Ragusa) Message-Id: <9201061812.AA20132@tellab1.TELLABS.COM> Apparently-To: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu 3/opsii To: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors In-Reply-To: References: <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, IL Cc: Bcc: From dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) Sat Jan 4 19:45:59 1992 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!rutgers!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!masscomp!peora!tous!bilver!dona From: dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. Message-ID: <1992Jan5.004559.19567@bilver.uucp> Date: 5 Jan 92 00:45:59 GMT References: <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL Lines: 78 In article <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Scott A. Yanoff) writes: > >Why would the U.S. government hide info regarding UFOs from the public? > >What would they gain? > >Secondly, how would they hide this info, without people hearing the truth from >other goverments around the world? > >-- > !\ /\ _/\_ yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu > _! ! ! ! !_ _! > ! ! !_!_ ! ! !___ MILWAUKEE, > ! ! ! !!_! ! !_ WISCONSIN On the other hand...why would the Govt hide the truth regarding CIA activities in the Nugan Hand bank, or Tell Bo Gritz "there ain't no MIA's in Laos/Cambodia", or October Surprise..why would the Justice Dept impede the BCCI investigation for months..or which mechanic was hired to kill Danny Cassolaro? Why would they hide The Truth (tm) in who really killed JFK,RFK or MLK? ..what would they gain.. You have to look at motives here.. The Govt hasn't been _totally_ successful in hiding information from the public on UFO's..you can find out but be prepared to do some mighty deep digging. This includes slugging through much dis-info calculated to lead you down dead-ins and some really outlandish claims (ie..Bill Cooper, Krill Papers). Part of the answer of the "why would they hide the info" has to do with "national security"..if a craft can boldly show up at nuclear facilities, "buzz" the area, and then haul butt..or if the craft have followed the STS around in orbit..or the craft can out accelerate our fastest jets (Belgium), do you *really* think they would tell the public and admit they can't do anything about it? Part of the answer is they just _might_ have made "secret" deals with aliens (Holloman), or have captured ET's (Roswell). Part of the answer is they may perceive that we "might freak out"..I would have agreed on this at one time, but not so much nowadays. However, let's suppose for the sake of argument that ET's do exist and they land their craft outside a football stadium..They come forward and present themselves. Admitedly, this is a simplistic scenario..but let's go with it..what do you suppose the impact would be on organized religion? If the ET's come forth bearing gifts of *free* and unlimited power sources that don't pollute the environment,etc..what impact would this have upon a society that uses fossils fuels? How about industries like auto manufacturing,appliances,utility companies? The impact would be staggerring and possibly devastating to our society financially. You ask a good question and one that goes to the heart of the matter. We DO know from documents secured under FOIA releases that the Govt (military) has had many reasons to keep the matter under wraps and on more than one occasion has denied any complicity in cover-ups..but which claims were later proven inaccurate due to the testimony of witnessess who have come forth. I can recomend that you read - Above Top Secret by Timothy Good, and UFO Crash at Roswell by Kevin D. Randle and Donald R. Schmitt for starters and decide for yourself "what are they hiding". Don -- -* Don Allen *- // Only | Are you ready for SETI? Internet: dona@bilver.uucp \X/ Amiga | Oct 12,1992 - ET comes to NM UUCP: .........uunet!peora!bilver!dona | The *real* "October Surprise" Psi-Tech and alien brain-wave research -- Whats going on at Los Alamos? From jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) Tue Jan 7 20:08:09 1992 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!dorm.rutgers.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!vanth!jms From: jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: Why would gov't hide info. Message-ID: Date: 8 Jan 92 01:08:09 GMT References: <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> Organization: The Search For TERRESTRIAL Intelligence Lines: 28 In article <1992Jan3.220311.12005@uwm.edu> yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Scott A. Yanoff) writes: > >Why would the U.S. government hide info regarding UFOs from the public? Most of the theories say that we're not ready to face the fact that aliens are visiting this planet. Either the culture shock would be too great, or various religions wouldn't be able to cope with it, or alien technology would destroy our economic system by making our technology obsolete. (Personally, I'm getting sick of our present culture, and I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of religions get lost either. As for technology, we don't need aliens. There have been a lot of free energy inventions over the years, and even an occasional claim for gravitational technology.) And of course there's the theory that the aliens are using us for food and genetic experiments. On a less sensational level, what if the government has proof that UFOs exist, but hasn't been able to figure out basic things like how they work, where they come from, or why they're here? Would you expect the all-powerful government to admit that something's going on that they don't have any control over? This is, possibly, a more plausible panic scenario than my first paragraph. (It all depends on how much the government really knows, of course.) -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | I'm in a groove now Jim Shaffer, Jr. | uunet!cbmvax!vanth!jms | -- or is it a rut? 37 Brook Street | jms%vanth@cbmvax.commodore.com | Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (Rush, "Face Up") 11-Jan-92 22:57:39-GMT,1949;000000000011 Received: from ccu.umanitoba.ca by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16833; Sat, 11 Jan 92 17:57:34 EST Received: from bison.UUCP by ccu.UManitoba.CA with UUCP (4.1/25-eef) id AA23988; Sat, 11 Jan 92 16:57:29 CST Received: by bison.mb.ca (1.64/waf) via UUCP; Sat, 11 Jan 92 16:39:35 CST for mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Received: by sys6626.bison.mb.ca (1.64/waf) via UUCP; Sat, 11 Jan 92 03:37:59 CST for mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Received: by inqmind.bison.mb.ca (1.64/waf) via UUCP; Fri, 10 Jan 92 22:21:09 CST for mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu To: mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Philadelphia Experiment? From: turtle@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Barry) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 22:21:08 CST In-Reply-To: <9201090202.AA25053@porthos.rutgers.edu> Organization: The Inquiring Mind 1 204 488-1607 mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu writes: > Hi, > > The "Philadelphia Experiement" plot revolved around two sailors who > fell overboard while the ship was "in the warp", and fell into the > 1980's through a similar hole in "the now", created to further > experiement with the effect by scientists in "the now". The sailors > wind up going back (through the hole in the "now" to the "in-between") > to destroy the DE's generator, which closes the hole, and returns the > ship to 1944, but one of the sailors stays in the 1980's. The End. > > Hope this helps, > > Charles Charles, Thanks for the movie review. I remember seeing the movie a few years ago when it first came out on video but I couldn't remember any of the detail. I had no idea, as seems apparent from reading comments on Alt.Alien visitors, that the movie was base on an event which was actually supposed to have taken place. To be honest I find that hard to believe. Ooops, my ture beliefs are showing through. Thanks. --Barry turtle@inqmind.bison.mb.ca The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba 204 488-1607 11-Jan-92 23:27:08-GMT,1102;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19763; Sat, 11 Jan 92 18:27:07 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13343; Sat, 11 Jan 92 18:26:56 EST Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 18:26:55 EST From: Charles To: turtle@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Barry) Subject: Re: Philadelphia Experiment? In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 10 Jan 92 22:21:08 CST Cc: mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Message-Id: Hi, ...that the movie was base on an event which was actually supposed to have taken place. ... well, based extremely loosely. O'course, having made a movie out of fiction doesn't make the fiction more likely, regardless of what Oliver Stone may say... :-) To be honest I find that hard to believe. ... likewise. Something the US military would *never* do is give up on such a technology, and yet (according to the legend) that's exactly what they did. (Would have saved a ton of money on rocket research if we could just materialize H-bombs in Moscow...) Charles From mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) Sun Jan 12 01:41:09 1992 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!mcgrew From: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,rec.arts.movies Subject: Re: JFK & PUBLIC OPINION Message-ID: Date: 12 Jan 92 06:41:09 GMT References: <1992Jan7.101036.4718@abode.ttank.com> <1992Jan7.182837.5542@hal.com> <1992Jan11.090718.13639@clark.edu> Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 27 I do remember this election when people were saying that he (Reagan) won by a landslide. What I am pretty sure that actually happened was that he won by a landslide when counting the Electoral Vote, but the Popular Vote was something like 65% to 35% in favor of Reagan over Mondale. ... I know this is base revisionism on my part, but that *is* a landslide, whether you like it or not. Some quick facts: Reagon won in 49 states, that is he had a majority in 49 states (Mondale won Minn. and DC); his popular-vote margin is second only to Nixon's in 1972; his percentage-of-vote is the higest ever: beating Harding (1920), Roosevelt (1936), Johnson (1964), and Nixon (1972). If Reagan's victory wasn't a landslide, I guess there hasn't ever been one... [source: The excellent "Presidental Campaigns", by Paul Boller.] And yet, only about 40% of the poeple that could have voted may have actually went out and voted. What would have happened had a possible 60% or 75% of the voting public actually went out and voted in November of 1984? ... sorry, but this is a pointless attempt at revisionism. If they didn't care to vote, then you cannot count them either way (I looked it up). He won, whether you and I like it or not. Charles 12-Jan-92 18:11:43-GMT,688;000000000001 Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22223; Sun, 12 Jan 92 13:11:39 EST Received: from netcom.netcom.com by netcomsv.netcom.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13572; Sun, 12 Jan 92 10:12:03 PST Received: by netcom.netcom.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA15671; Sun, 12 Jan 92 10:12:02 PST Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 10:12:02 PST From: sheaffer@netcom.netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) Message-Id: <9201121812.AA15671@netcom.netcom.com> To: mcgrew@cs.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Philadelphia Experiment? Thanks much. That's the value of computer conferencing: somewhere, someone has a really USEFUL piece of information stuck away in a file! Best, Robert From kjenks@galileo.uucp (Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] 483-4368) Sun Jan 26 21:49:46 1992 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!galileo!kjenks From: kjenks@galileo.uucp (Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] 483-4368) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic Subject: Reason for "Government Cover-ups" (was: Flying Serpents...) Message-ID: <1992Jan27.024946.11901@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Date: 27 Jan 92 02:49:46 GMT References: <53129@cup.portal.com> <1992Jan21.223703.8894@maths.tcd.ie> <53196@cup.portal.com> Sender: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office Lines: 56 In article <53196@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes: > [...] I also know the govt. is working on the Antarctica >remnants. And they are not about to tell us what they are finding. Do you have any idea WHY "the government" would WANT to cover up evidence of aliens or other non-verifiable phenomena? What motivation would any government have in such a cover-up? How would it benefit that government? Who would it benefit? I'm not disputing your claim that somebody might be working in Antarctica (I know a few people who have, but they've never mentioned any "remnants"). I'm looking for a realistic justification for a seemingly irrational act: covering up events which could aid our understanding of the Universe. Why would (supposedly rational) governmental agencies want to do such a thing? If I can't figure out a motive behind supposed cover-ups, I have a hard time believing a cover-up would actually take place. It can't be to deny the existence of alien intelligences. NASA has begun a very public SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) project. We wouldn't have gotten funding if some people didn't think it was worth the effort. To justify the effort, one has to admit the possibility of ETI's, but, at the same time, if we knew where they were, we wouldn't have to search for them. In the famous Watergate SNAFU, the reasons behind the attempted cover-up was obvious. Ditto in the Iran-Contra fiasco. But why would anybody want to suppress aliens, psi, "paranormal" activities, etc.? A cover-up would be practically impossible in most government agencies, since paperwork trails can never be completely obscured, and documents always seem to be leaked or declassified eventually. Watergate and Iran-Contra proved that there is always some evidence. How could a large-scale cover-up have occurred for many years without any verifiable evidence appearing in the public eye? Either there has never been such a cover-up, or somebody has been VERY careful. Why? I admit I'm just here in alt.alien.visitors for the amusement value, not because I take any of this stuff seriously, but I'm interested in what motives might drive supposed government cover-ups. Cross- postint to sci.skeptic, but I don't read that newsgroup. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "[I swear] I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." -- Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavits, the oath taken by all new Federal employees. From csd1227@ux.acs.umn.edu (Greg Larson) Mon Jan 27 03:08:45 1992 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!dorm.rutgers.edu!ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!csd1227 From: csd1227@ux.acs.umn.edu (Greg Larson) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: Reason for "Government Cover-ups" (was: Flying Serpents...) Message-ID: <1992Jan27.080845.8012@ux.acs.umn.edu> Date: 27 Jan 92 08:08:45 GMT References: <1992Jan21.223703.8894@maths.tcd.ie> <53196@cup.portal.com> <1992Jan27.024946.11901@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Organization: University of Minnesota, Academic Computing Services Lines: 108 In article <1992Jan27.024946.11901@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@galileo.uucp (Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] 483-4368) writes: >In article <53196@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes: >> [...] I also know the govt. is working on the Antarctica >>remnants. And they are not about to tell us what they are finding. > >Do you have any idea WHY "the government" would WANT to cover up >evidence of aliens or other non-verifiable phenomena? What motivation >would any government have in such a cover-up? How would it benefit >that government? Who would it benefit? Many conservative elements in this country have an us vs. them attitude, where the 'them' is not necessarily aliens, but just the governments of other (esp. communist) countries. It is their moral obligation to secure and keep secret any information that may give us an advantage, militarily or otherwise. The most obvious benefits would be to understand how the craft themselves operate. One can only imagine how many other benefits there might be. >I'm not disputing your claim that somebody might be working in >Antarctica (I know a few people who have, but they've never mentioned >any "remnants"). I'm looking for a realistic justification for a >seemingly irrational act: covering up events which could aid our >understanding of the Universe. Why would (supposedly rational) >governmental agencies want to do such a thing? If I can't figure out a >motive behind supposed cover-ups, I have a hard time believing a >cover-up would actually take place. It may not aid Joe Scientist down at NASA, but those involved would probably like to keep whatever they learn to themselves - again for reasons of national security. Some of them may be worried about public panic - about the effects on organized religion, on the economy, and (perhaps most importantly) on politics. A conservative friend of mine gets emotionally upset any time I mention the possibility of alien visitors, just like it bothers him to be around people of different races/cultures. It is obvious that there are a lot of people like this, especially in the good ol' U.S.A. >It can't be to deny the existence of alien intelligences. NASA has >begun a very public SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) >project. We wouldn't have gotten funding if some people didn't think >it was worth the effort. To justify the effort, one has to admit the >possibility of ETI's, but, at the same time, if we knew where they >were, we wouldn't have to search for them. SETI could be just a smokescreen against the media. If someone from the news calls NASA to find out about their opinion on ET's, they get conveniently directed to Carl Sagan and what they're doing with SETI. Admitting the possibility of ET's elsewhere is not the same as saying they're here on Earth (perhaps in great numbers), and that they have been abducting many people. >In the famous Watergate SNAFU, the reasons behind the attempted >cover-up was obvious. Ditto in the Iran-Contra fiasco. But why >would anybody want to suppress aliens, psi, "paranormal" activities, >etc.? > >A cover-up would be practically impossible in most government agencies, >since paperwork trails can never be completely obscured, and documents >always seem to be leaked or declassified eventually. Watergate and >Iran-Contra proved that there is always some evidence. How could a >large-scale cover-up have occurred for many years without any >verifiable evidence appearing in the public eye? Either there has >never been such a cover-up, or somebody has been VERY careful. Why? Neither you nor I know how good the government is at cover-up operations, since we don't know about the successes - just the failures. Watergate and Iran-Contra only show that the government does frequently engage in large-scale coverup operations, and that when they get caught, they'll just try harder next time. Do you really think that if every coverup attempt has failed, that they'd be so persistent? There is ample evidence of government coverup - haven't you seen any of the many crossed-out pages of govenment documents pertaining to UFO's that have been publicly displayed? If you are still confused over why they would want to cover up alien visitations and crashed saucers, then perhaps you need to do a little research (and thinking!) on your own. >I admit I'm just here in alt.alien.visitors for the amusement value, >not because I take any of this stuff seriously, but I'm interested >in what motives might drive supposed government cover-ups. Cross- >postint to sci.skeptic, but I don't read that newsgroup. You might think your attitude represents a healthy skeptical attitude, but a sincere skeptic wouldn't be so quick to offer a disclaimer (you just HAD to let everyone know that you are here for laughs - horror of horrors if your boss were to see you talking seriously about UFOs!). And a true skeptic wouldn't be so quick to be so utterly UN-skeptical about the government's motives either. >-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office > kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 > > "[I swear] I will support and defend the Constitution of the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^ Yup, this xenophobia is one element the driving force at work here. > will bear faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this > obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of > evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties > of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And why should I take YOU seriously? > > -- Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavits, the oath taken > by all new Federal employees.