Many who hold the plausible belief that some UFOs are caused by strange strong (“alien”) powers now believe that the US (and maybe other) govts have long been keeping strong confirming evidence re these powers secret, plausibly for as long as eighty years, but might now be induced to disclose this info.
I'm not even going to get into AATIP and how this is all a psy op. I am just going to tell you WHY UFOs are a thing
1. Great threat of the "other" propaganda to drum up war support. Widely used by both sides during the Cold war. Whenever there's a big UFO reveal that means something important is happening in I think it is 10 days with the war. Dunno Id have to count the days again.
2. To cover up insanely heinous naval intelligence experiments on unwitting, innocent people who fret a lot about doing the right thing (thus making them good candidates) like civil rights advocates Barney and Betty Hill.
P.S. sociopaths are also good targets but it seems to me those people are pretty straight forward and they're more interested in the nuances of the hyper-moral people these days. In my opinion.
There are no aliens. A world defining event like a visit from extra-terrestrials would be quite apparent.
If there's anything, it'd be proof that mankind survived the cataclysms of its own making and was able to travel the fourth dimension... THAT possibility I **might** consider...
But alien travelers from a distance star? NO. Folks have to understand the science behind such a miraculous trip. It's simply not possible.
Almost everything in paragraphs three through five is evidence that there is nothing to disclose.
You write government is "so bad at coordinating" that it may have destroyed its own evidence and failed to tell what it knew. Paragraph four says the military and intelligence communities are "quite aware" of the public's revealed preference over GDP allocation, can price the security cost of disclosure against the civilian benefit, and "should be willing to make that trade." Is this the same government? Is government a mess with no memory or maximizing a correctly-weighted social welfare function over decades?
You can often see how someone with an uncommon evidence-processing style might get this wrong. The facts about life science and space are compact, simple, and quantifiable. The facts about how government works *over several generations* are vague and holistic.
If you talk to a Kennedy conspiracist, they’re most interested in talking about anomalies like how the bullet angles don’t work out. Then they handwave a lot of broad, holistic, contradictory arguments: Oswald seemed pretty assassin-y, it would be crazy for two people to be shooting the President at the exact same time, lots of independent agencies say they investigated and didn’t find anything else. So in order to keep their favored facts (about the bullet angles) they propose a conspiracy that explains away why Oswald looked so guilty, why all the official investigations said it was just Oswald, and so on. This is just like that.
> which clearly shows that the “security” goals we assign to them are not an overwhelming priority. So when they see that they have a way to give us a big boost on our other goals at only a modest cost to security, they should be willing to make that trade
What? It doesn't follow that the military and intelligence communities care about the priorities of the general public. They won't be willing to trade security for other goals, because their training and culture is firstly to maximize security.
> Some suggest that their reason is to protect the public from emotional stress. But that seems pretty crazy; I’m pretty sure most of us could quickly and easily accommodate the news. Yes, the status of many might fall, but when truths can hurt status, then truths should so hurt status.
Same problem. "When truths can hurt status, truths should hurt status" is *your* justification for releasing the information, but the military and intelligence communities don't think that way. Their culture is more authoritarian and hierarchical. They don't want status upsets. When someone low-ranked in the military or intelligence community wants to release information that would damage the status of someone higher-up, the military predictably responds by suppressing the information and punishing the low-ranked individual.
However, overall, I do think that if the military had such information on aliens, it would get out. Because keeping a secret when a bunch of people know it is just too difficult. I think that the information that has gotten out about aliens - i.e. a few blurry videos of unidentified objects - is probably most of what they had.
Chances of something being true has a lot to do with how many top scientists are working on it. And if people really are working on it, there would be progress, in material sciences atleast , not least fuel etc. If other countries know it, then it is a race where people will devote significant $ on it, we saw that with nukes across the world. consider AI right now. govts might want to keep it secret to stop other countries (that dont yet know) from pursuing it/ searching for such materials (search ocean beds?). The idea of secret race with no country spending to match the degree of technical change it would bring means, it is likely low probability.And what about secret agencies of other countries , not finding it out till now?. Either cult has it and are keeping it from being explored, thinking its some trojan horse danger something. Or it is not true, Even if it were true, we dont see the dynamic of other country spy agencies not finding it out till now. Or govt not doing everything in their power to find the secrets and exploit it for technology, growth, military etc. None of it makes sense.
"Our govt military and intelligence communities must be quite aware that citizens are only willing to give them a limited fraction of GDP, which clearly shows that the “security” goals we assign to them are not an overwhelming priority"
Because the idea that something has to be assigned a high fraction of GDP to be an overwhelming priority is an insane way to sort things. According to that:
I'm not even going to get into AATIP and how this is all a psy op. I am just going to tell you WHY UFOs are a thing
1. Great threat of the "other" propaganda to drum up war support. Widely used by both sides during the Cold war. Whenever there's a big UFO reveal that means something important is happening in I think it is 10 days with the war. Dunno Id have to count the days again.
2. To cover up insanely heinous naval intelligence experiments on unwitting, innocent people who fret a lot about doing the right thing (thus making them good candidates) like civil rights advocates Barney and Betty Hill.
P.S. sociopaths are also good targets but it seems to me those people are pretty straight forward and they're more interested in the nuances of the hyper-moral people these days. In my opinion.
I believe we're being lied to. Always.
There are no aliens. A world defining event like a visit from extra-terrestrials would be quite apparent.
If there's anything, it'd be proof that mankind survived the cataclysms of its own making and was able to travel the fourth dimension... THAT possibility I **might** consider...
But alien travelers from a distance star? NO. Folks have to understand the science behind such a miraculous trip. It's simply not possible.
Almost everything in paragraphs three through five is evidence that there is nothing to disclose.
You write government is "so bad at coordinating" that it may have destroyed its own evidence and failed to tell what it knew. Paragraph four says the military and intelligence communities are "quite aware" of the public's revealed preference over GDP allocation, can price the security cost of disclosure against the civilian benefit, and "should be willing to make that trade." Is this the same government? Is government a mess with no memory or maximizing a correctly-weighted social welfare function over decades?
You can often see how someone with an uncommon evidence-processing style might get this wrong. The facts about life science and space are compact, simple, and quantifiable. The facts about how government works *over several generations* are vague and holistic.
If you talk to a Kennedy conspiracist, they’re most interested in talking about anomalies like how the bullet angles don’t work out. Then they handwave a lot of broad, holistic, contradictory arguments: Oswald seemed pretty assassin-y, it would be crazy for two people to be shooting the President at the exact same time, lots of independent agencies say they investigated and didn’t find anything else. So in order to keep their favored facts (about the bullet angles) they propose a conspiracy that explains away why Oswald looked so guilty, why all the official investigations said it was just Oswald, and so on. This is just like that.
> which clearly shows that the “security” goals we assign to them are not an overwhelming priority. So when they see that they have a way to give us a big boost on our other goals at only a modest cost to security, they should be willing to make that trade
What? It doesn't follow that the military and intelligence communities care about the priorities of the general public. They won't be willing to trade security for other goals, because their training and culture is firstly to maximize security.
> Some suggest that their reason is to protect the public from emotional stress. But that seems pretty crazy; I’m pretty sure most of us could quickly and easily accommodate the news. Yes, the status of many might fall, but when truths can hurt status, then truths should so hurt status.
Same problem. "When truths can hurt status, truths should hurt status" is *your* justification for releasing the information, but the military and intelligence communities don't think that way. Their culture is more authoritarian and hierarchical. They don't want status upsets. When someone low-ranked in the military or intelligence community wants to release information that would damage the status of someone higher-up, the military predictably responds by suppressing the information and punishing the low-ranked individual.
However, overall, I do think that if the military had such information on aliens, it would get out. Because keeping a secret when a bunch of people know it is just too difficult. I think that the information that has gotten out about aliens - i.e. a few blurry videos of unidentified objects - is probably most of what they had.
Chances of something being true has a lot to do with how many top scientists are working on it. And if people really are working on it, there would be progress, in material sciences atleast , not least fuel etc. If other countries know it, then it is a race where people will devote significant $ on it, we saw that with nukes across the world. consider AI right now. govts might want to keep it secret to stop other countries (that dont yet know) from pursuing it/ searching for such materials (search ocean beds?). The idea of secret race with no country spending to match the degree of technical change it would bring means, it is likely low probability.And what about secret agencies of other countries , not finding it out till now?. Either cult has it and are keeping it from being explored, thinking its some trojan horse danger something. Or it is not true, Even if it were true, we dont see the dynamic of other country spy agencies not finding it out till now. Or govt not doing everything in their power to find the secrets and exploit it for technology, growth, military etc. None of it makes sense.
“it should be clear that disclosure would in fact give us a big boost to our other goals” - how, and what other goals?
"Our govt military and intelligence communities must be quite aware that citizens are only willing to give them a limited fraction of GDP, which clearly shows that the “security” goals we assign to them are not an overwhelming priority"
What an actually insane thing to say.
Because?
Because the idea that something has to be assigned a high fraction of GDP to be an overwhelming priority is an insane way to sort things. According to that:
Overwhelming priorities:
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Medicaid and other health
4. Net interest on the debt
Not that important:
1. Drinking water
2. Love
3. Reproduction
4. Science
> 1. Drinking water
See the diamond-water paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
Shorter version: fractional share of GDP does in fact not denote importance or priority, as inconvenient as that is to some very odd religions.