Is There a UFO Cover-Up? A Government Insider Speaks Out | Hacker News Reader

Is There a UFO Cover-Up? A Government Insider Speaks Out

huffingtonpost.com

33 pointsevo_916 comments

So, in summary, this is a person who had very high levels of access to exactly the sort of documents that might indicate this sort of thing, he's a person searching for UFOs and UFO information so he might also tease out a pattern in suppressed information in these very high-level documents, and he's got literally nothing the rest of us haven't got.

The eternal-conspiracy answer is that there's an enormous coverup that knew he was interested and planned in advance that despite or because of this interest they would engage in a complicated dance in which they merely appeared to give him very high level access to government documents, but somehow completely sealed away all the evidence that would have led him to the putative truth (presumably dedicating untold thousands of man hours to this task, using their presumed army of informed people who still not a one of them ever leak the secret in any way), and then deliberately allowed him out into the public to say that despite his hopes he could find no evidence of aliens, to continue the coverup of the existence of aliens that still doesn't seem to be of particular benefit to anyone.

Alternatively, there really aren't any UFOs, because UFOs are uniquely a product of a 20th-century media portrayals, and if there really were aliens among us, they wouldn't be flying around in large primitive aircraft and occasionally crashing, they'd be a dusting of nanotechnology so sophisticated that it could quite likely edit out our own perceptions of the technology in real time. Because even though the latter may sound more fantastical at first, it's actually a plausible possibility of a high-level Kardashev 1+ civilization, whereas flying around in huge physical aircraft is just an unbelievably silly thing for a sophisticated alien race to do, now that we know much more about the limits of technology.

(Even we humans, with 21st century technology, do not have a purpose in flying around in low-flying craft that occasionally crash. We use satellites, or tap oceanic fiber cables, or fly in very high craft and use optics, or do any of dozens of far more sensible things, and we aren't a Kardeshev 1+ civilization.)

I wish people would not link HuffPo "news" to HN. I come here to avoid UFOs, Deepak Chopra, and other mindlessness.

Depressing to see this thread immediately devolve into dismissals from people who obviously didn't take the time to read the article. It's actually pretty interesting -- both because of who it's about (pretty serious classified government dude) and what action he's taking (collecting hard data).

To paraphrase:

I've spent a lot of time in classified programs and there doesn't seem to be any official government UFO program, so getting the government to disclose what it knowns won't amount to much. Having said that, if such programs exist they're likely conducted by separate, extra-government organizations. Personally, I think the phenomenon is worth studying based on a high number of credible people giving credible reports. Because of that, I've joined the board of UFODATA which is using automated surveillance stations to try to collect (more) hard data about UFOs.

A better phenomenon to study: why haven't "credible" "UFO" reports skyrocketed since cellphones with digital cameras became common?

If you had taken the time to read the article you would have an answer.

He asked for credible videos. The videos mentioned in the article ( found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/MUFONHQ/videos ) are things like recordings of drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khdW87DblIo

Many of them are just straight-up pitch-black, lacking any kind of frame of reference, with one or more lights in them that move on the screen. There's literally no way to tell whether the thing moves or the people just move their phone.

"There are 2 types of UFOs -- the ones we build and ones 'they' build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual "hand-me-downs." The Government knew and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that information. After a 1969 Nixon "purge", administration was handled by an international board of directors in the private sector…"

--Dr. Ben R. Rich former Lockheed Skunk Works director

http://www.thodio.com/ben-rich.jpg

Betteridge's Law of Headlines strikes again:

> Q. Do you think that if Clinton is elected we can expect to learn new information about UFOs?

> A. I highly doubt DoD or any other government agency is concealing UFO information.

> Q. Are you certain there is no government cover-up?

> A. It’s impossible to prove the negative, so all I can say is that I never saw any evidence of official interest in UFOs.

> Q. So where does this all leave us, and what is to be done?

> A. In my view, calling for the end to an alleged government UFO cover-up is almost certainly a dead end, and does not help inspire anyone in government to become more open to the topic. The UFO mystery is a scientific problem.

(That's not to say there isn't a UFO cover-up. But we're discussing this article, and the insiders' opinion is that the answer is no.)

There's also a big difference between UFO and Alien Vehicle. A UFO could be a foreign airplane, or satellite, or a weird meteor, or two birds duct-taped together.

Why is it so inevitable that someone must come in and remind us that UFO != alien craft whenever there is a thread about UFOs? A UFO (in the common use of the term) is almost certainly not a foreign airplane, satellite, weird meteor, etc, because the cases that continue to be called UFOs generally are of objects that portray aerodynamics that are beyond any known sources. So yes, UFO does not mean alien craft, UFO means "some crazy ass shit that is almost definitely not something we understand" -- pointing out the distinction does not somehow neutralize the mystery of the cases that persist to this day (like the Belgian one in this article.) The 'extraterrestrial hypothesis' is certainly an attractive one to try to rule out for these cases, but nobody presumes to think it's the only one worth considering.

Looks like the only reason this interview was given/article was written was to try to get a few page views in the wake of Clinton saying some dumb off-the-cuff stuff about UFOs.

I disagree. One of the relevant information provided by the article is that this topic should be considered a mater of scientific research and that he joined the effort of UFODATA. Maybe we don't have the same information filters. I tend to filter out anything related to Clinton and US elections ;)

> two birds duct-taped together That's an oddly specific case - is this just a humorous idea, or an actual UFO explanation from real life?

Every time I see the word "UFO", I think back to this comic: http://i.imgur.com/86y8abV.png

There are almost certainly multiple "UFO" cover ups by the US government - to prevent classified aircraft from being identified when they're being tested.

Certainly. Also weather balloons that were in fact doing remote observation of Soviet nuclear weapons testing (see project Mogul run out of Roswell, NM).

I was genuinely expecting a bubble burster article with copious amounts of weather balloons thrown in. Surprised to know that there are well recorded events with no reasonable explanation. But the question whether there is a government cover up is almost meaningless. Any answer given by any one is open to interpretation. Either at face value or a part of elaborate cover up or the ramblings of a crazy person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com