On 16 Jul 2003, petesbarman@yahoo.com (Tim) wrote:
You bring up some good points. Here's just a little more explanation
of what I'm trying to say :
You bring up some good points, too. I appreciate your going to the
trouble of a considered reply. While I may not agree with you on several
points, the issues still make for a constructive debate.
First off, the issue of "Compartmentalization" is true. Sensitive data
is broken up into parts that require a "Need to know" basis to get to.
Then you go on to talk about the "People at the top of the pyramid".
The fact is, by the very definition of the data, they themselves would
only "Need to know" a very little bit.
Knowledge is relative, in the sense that someone will always be more
knowledgeable, or less, than his colleague.
My definition of the 'pyramid' differs from yours in that the further you go
up the ladder of information, more is known, not less. A lot of people are tabulating
data on this whole area we are talking about, people who work in
specialised areas, defence, global communications, and so on, and they
each know a relative amount, that's understood! only as much as they
need to. But someone, somewhere, perhaps a group, will have access
to a broad spectrum of information. Not only will they know about ALL the
events that have occurred which are public knowledge, but they will know
about all the events that have been kept from the public, under an umbrella
of National Security. They will know about the covert special access
programs associated with this field. They will know about the specialised
way this information is handled; the department, who is responsible
for public relations, who sets the policy, who they work for, and so on.
You can bet your sweet bippy that someone, somewhere, knows more
than anyone else, and that they have a vested interest in guarding that information
with an iron fist, because knowledge is power. It is more likely to be an elite
group or cabal than a few scattered, isolated individuals, unconnected -
speculation, yes, but it makes more sense to me than the suggestion that knowledge
is fragmented permanently into seperate compartments, each ignorant of the other. On one
level, yes, but only one level of the hierarchy.
How do you keep a secret as big as this? if only a select few know the full picture -
then it's easy.
Maybe there are a lot of people
who know many little bits, but nobody would know everything.
No-one can know everything, granted; for one thing, information
is a dynamic process, and secondly, there's the learning process But someone is
always in a position to know more of the big picture.
And those
people would not discuss their little bits, because the others would
not need to know their factoids. Terefore, if the govt has info on
UFO's, they may not be covering it up.
Yet reams of heavily blacked-out FOIA documents
have been extracted, at considerable expense, by dedicated
researchers, showiing precisely that that they ARE
covering it up. Put it this way, if there were nothing to hide
why go to the trouble of setting PR hatchet jobs like
the Condon Report and Blue Book - more full of holes in their
conclusions than swiss cheese?
Maybe nobody actually has
enough pieces of the puzzle to realize that the info is there...
I don't find that logical, or inevitable.
Second, I automatically distrust any person or group that talks about
a faceless "Them" or a "Government". Problem is that if you can't
specifically name who you are talking about, then you have no idea
what you are looking for. And saying words like "Government" or
"Military" or "Majestic" or any other things still doesn't clarify who
you are talking about. Who do you want to ask info from and what info
are you expecting to see, exactly? Remember, if the right question
isn't asked, the answer is "42".
Not every aspect of government is acknowledged, whether it be
war or peacetime.
If one asks a question, writes a letter, and get a contradictory, misleading
answer from a government department, then one can be forgiven for thinking
that the true facts are not being presented honestly. and in their entirety.
The history of UFO research is littered with letters like these, as documented
by people like Nick Redfern, who bases his research, not on speculation,
but actual government documents held in archives like the Public Records Office at Kew.
You may automatically distrust anyone who refers to a faceless "Them" or
a "Government". That's your perogative - and it's mine to refer to unacknowledged
parties that I know to be there, who are responsible for overseeing these issues.
Just because it has no official name does not mean a department does not exist.
A good researcher keeps inquiring from offices associated with
the unacknowledged department, until information comes to light, like
Nick Redfern and the Low Level Flights complaint section which purportedly was never
involved in UFO research, according to them. Not true, according to the witnesses they
interviewed.
Third, I'm not being "told" to say anything.
I take your word for that. You are simply not told certain facts, because there is
no need for you to know.
And for that matter,
there are very few "Robots" in the military. We are just like you, we
just have these stylin' haircuts and get to have the great fun of
dressing in strange "dress" clothes when we work... (In the Navy we
get to wear really cool dress whites with capes on the back that have
little stars on them. Then we walk around wondering why the "Gay
Sailor" stereotype is so prevalent! :-) ).
I have nothing against people in the military, (or you, for that matter.)
You are there to do a job, and I've no doubt you wouldn't be there
unless you believed in what you were doing, and the same is true
of those stationed in Iraq, who now are beginning to have doubts.
Fourth, I'm not saying that the people in the military are Dumb,
Stupid, or Incompetent. That was a joke. The fact is though that in an
organization as large as the govt or military there would be no way to
stop the leaks of this conspiracy if it existed. Too many people would
know about it.
How so? but we have just established the very mechanism by
which this takes place, compartmentalisation and need-to-know.
Yes the govt tried to lie to the people about the
existence of Stealth tech and Area 51 and so on. But the fact that
they existed still found it's way out to the public, so that when the
government announced them, we all knew about it already.
People knew about it. The workers poisoned from the open burning pits
at Area 51 knew about it, too, but when they took the case to court
Clinton exempted them from disclosing any details of Area 51
on grounds of National Security.
And I really don't think the govt is corrupt.
I agree. I really don't think they are corrupt. They are absolutely, wholly,
totally corrupt, beyond any hope of redemption.
Do you honestly believe
that the president wakes up and decides to lie, cheat, and steal every
day, right after he kills some kittens in the morning?
Of course not. He doesn't decide anything for himself; the policies
and major events on the world stage are planned in advance by others.
The president is just a figurehead, a puppet created to foster the illusion that we are living
in a democracy. People need a father figure to rally behind -
someone strong who will protect them, so that they don't
have to think for themselves.
According to George Bush's childhood buddy, they used to play behind
a farmhouse by a pond, where George amused himself inserting firecrackers into frogs,
threw them, and had some good laughs when the poor hapless suckers blew up. As far as I know he
has nothing against kittens, but frogs, watch out.
The more
realistic idea is to say that he's probably a guy just like you or me,
trying to do what he sees a the "right" thing. His decisions effect
more people than do others, and you may disagree with them, but he's
trying his best. I think pretty much everyone else is the same (I may
be naive here, but I honestly tink that).
I respect your point of view, and your experience, but on this one
you are either being naive or you honestly don't know.
You also don't give the normal "person on the street" enough credit.
The whole disinformation campaign you described would only work if the
normal american couldn't think for themselves and believed everything
the media told them.
But that's precisely the point! the problem is that a significant mass of people
CAN'T think for themselves, and they DO believe everything the media tell them, because
the information they get on a daily basis is so slanted and bogus that they have
nothing to compare it with. That is the whole problem, or at least a very big
part of the problem; that people neither have the time, nor the inclination,
to concern themselves with these issues. They have to sort out the mortgage,
feed the family, pay the bills, and so on under a financial system that becomes more
oppressive year by year, that is, if you are not already wealthy.
As far as I can see, most people in the US are
fully capable of identifying BS when they see it, and don't stand for
it.
But they are fed BS from day one; if you are reared on a tissue of lies,
you have no reason to expect anything different, and the people
who subscribe to a different point of view look like madmen, unpatriotic,
aiding and abetting terrorists. "If you're not with us, you're against us."
Not much middle ground, is there?
I'll stop now, I just want to say this : The govt, military, whatever
is just to big and broad to keep a secret like UFO's for very long.
Maybe, if they really tried, it would work for a few years, but not
this long.
You say, 'this long'. How long is a piece of string? As long as....?
and since.... 'which event' transpired? Do you mean for the 56 years
since Roswell?
Yes, they CAN keep a secret of this magnitude, if the public
at large is sufficiently ill-informed or disinterested to provoke,
question and challenge the official line. With blanket media control,
it's a piece of cake; all you need to do is paint a generalised
picture of a bunch of crackpots with wild, half-assed theories, and set
the cat among the pigeons from time to time with timely
snippets of disinformation. The media takes care of the rest.