In UFO circles, much fuss has been made about a recent response by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to two petitions on extraterrestrial/human communications, posted on a government website. Phil Larson, who was tasked to respond, has been accused of everything from lying, to cover-ups, to gross incompetence. But the real problem lies with the inappropriate and fundamentally flawed content of the petitions themselves -- not with the government reply to them. The critics seem to have lost sight of what the petitions actually said and did not say, while insulting and lashing out at Larson.
One petition asks the Obama administration to "immediately disclose the government's knowledge of and communications with extraterrestrial beings" and the other to "formally acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race." The former asks for congressional hearings about "this subject" (communications with ET) while the latter requests the release of documents about "this phenomenon" (an extraterrestrial presence). Thousands of people signed on to the assumptions that extraterrestrial beings have been secretly talking to our government or somehow are involved with the whole human race. Try thinking about these bizarre and murky statements from the perspective of a scientifically-oriented government official. How is he to make sense of such absurd requests?
Neither petition had anything to do with the subject of UFOs, as properly defined; no request for data on UFOs was included. And, chances are, Larson knows very little, if anything, about the evidence for UFOs. Like most government scientists, he likely dismissed the subject long ago as baseless and therefore irrelevant to space policy, and has never looked into it. Consequently, it's entirely logical that Larson would not make the leap from the question of extraterrestrial communications to the issue of physical unidentified flying objects. Did the petitioners not expect that their requests would be taken at face value?
Without asking for acknowledgment of evidence for UFOs, you can't slam Larson for not providing it. He addressed the petitioners' concerns with an update on the current status of the scientific search for extraterrestrial life: "The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye." The "any evidence" here refers specifically to evidence of ET interacting with humans, not to evidence for UFOs. Within the realm of science and logic, his statement happens to be true. Unfortunately, the badly worded petitions asked for the wrong thing -- something obviously impossible for the White House to deliver. And, sadly for all of us, the subsequent attacks on Larson's statement (called "a travesty against the public" by one leading UFO researcher) will not serve to motivate officials to help our cause.
It's important to realize that these two petitions received attention only because they acquired the requisite 5,000 signatures (now the minimum is 25,000) along with hundreds of others. Larson's response does not represent some kind of formal government statement on the UFO issue -- far from it. Larson simply provided an obligatory scientific response to citizens seeking an announcement of contact with extraterrestrials. The significance of his statement should not be blown out of proportion or spun as something that it is not.
I would like to share some comments from government insiders whom I asked to read the petition about an "extraterrestrial presence," since this one garnered the most signatures. Ed Rothschild, principal with the Podesta Group, a leading government relations and public relations firm in Washington, is "a seasoned veteran at strategic communications" with "dynamic experience in both Congress and the public interest community," according to the firm's website. Ed has provided assistance to my group, the Coalition for Freedom of Information, in the past, and is an expert at positioning the UFO issue in Washington. His response to the petition is as follows:
Those who claim that extraterrestrials are here are simply propagating nonsense -- a non-scientific belief that defies credibility. This is counter-productive and undermines efforts to get serious government attention for the issue of the existence of life beyond our solar system. I can't imagine this silly statement would go anywhere except into government office waste baskets.
The only way to approach the issue of unexplained aerial phenomena in Washington and expect results is to present the facts and seek a legitimate inquiry into the small percentage of well-documented cases worthy of serious investigation. The approach represented by this petition has been shown many times before to be a failure. Further, those propagating this nonsense choose to make outrageous claims simply to get media attention, rather than focusing on the hard work that science requires.
Any statement that implies the government is lying is going to be counter-productive. When someone accuses you of being part of a cover-up, you can't and don't engage with them. I got this sort of thing all the time at the Ministry of Defense, and no meaningful dialogue was possible with such people. I simply gave them a polite brush-off, and I understand exactly why this is necessary within government. To get results, a constructive request should stress the reasons why the phenomenon is worthy of official investigation.
And what about members of Congress? The best I could do is approach a high level Hill staffer with knowledge of this issue, who wishes to remain anonymous. He works for a member from a relevant committee. "As is often said, politics is the art of the possible. Overly broad statements and fantastical claims of cover ups serve only to poison the well for anyone interested in advancing any subsequent suggestion for research or review of policies. Enthusiasm and conviction is no substitute for reason and evidence."
Scientists are a difficult bunch to convince. Yet theoretical physicist Michio Kaku acknowledged on national television that the strongest UFO cases cannot be explained and appear to defy the laws of physics. But when asked if this confirms that there is extraterrestrial life, Kaku replied "No, we don't have that smoking gun" yet. Astronomer Derrick Pitts was swayed by the same evidence, accepting it because it did not involve "fantastic claims of alien visitation."
Clearly, we can't make the leap from the existence of unknown airborne objects, for which we have proof, to claims of extraterrestrial communications, which can't be proven, if we want to appeal to scientists. Neal Lane, Rice University professor of Physics and Astronomy, was the director of the OSTP under President Clinton. "Implausible explanations for UFOs such as this one, made by enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists, are not effective in approaching government," he explained after reading the petition. "A strong case has already been made for a new U.S. role in cooperative investigations of UFO phenomena, involving U.S. cooperation with other countries in investigating the credible reports and making the results public." That "strong case" is the one I am proposing as an alternative rallying point, because it is steadily gaining the support of many key players who know how government works.
Despite our own personal beliefs about alien spaceships, extraterrestrials, or government cover-ups, we have to adopt a strategy that will work. Our assumptions and conclusions are completely irrelevant -- and can be harmful -- to this process. It is crucial to realize that the vast majority of U.S. officials are both uninformed about and uninterested in UFOs. And if they are open, they are so afraid of ridicule that they have limited capacity to act. We have to educate them by presenting refined, concise, and well-documented official data on the UFO phenomenon. Timing is important, too; unfortunately, an election year is not the time to attempt this.
An effective strategy involves establishing the fact that a UFO, by definition, is simply something unidentified (the acronym does not mean "alien spacecraft"); it helps to use the acronym UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) whenever possible. The agnostic position, the scientifically sound one, acknowledges the accumulated evidence of an extraordinary, physical phenomenon but recognizes that we don't yet know what it is. Secondly, we need to provide a reason that government should care about UAP, such as pointing out that we could be vulnerable to exotic foreign spy planes or drones if we ignore reports; that these objects raise significant air safety issues; that we're losing potentially valuable scientific data about the nature of this recurring phenomenon. Thirdly, we have to invite government to engage in an investigation because we need its expertise, making its participation sound necessary and beneficial, rather than being accusatory.
Specifically, we need a small government office to serve as a U.S. focal point in the investigation of carefully selected cases, in cooperation with the international community. A staffer would have immediate access to all pertinent data and witnesses when investigating a UFO incident, working in conjunction with a qualified civilian oversight board. This proposal has received the support of generals, former and current government and military officials, scientists, and many other VIPs from around the world.
John Podesta, President Clinton's former chief of staff who served as co-chair of Obama's transition team, has been one of the more public proponents of what he calls "a new way forward." Labeling himself a "curious skeptic," he wrote in 2010 that "It is definitely time for government, scientists, and aviation experts to work together in unraveling the questions about UFOs that have so far remained in the dark." He says that the plan for a small U.S. government agency is "an idea worth considering."
Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington witnessed a spectacular UFO event while in office, but felt he had to keep that secret until ten years later. He knows from experience that change in government policy is desperately needed, and in response, he has publicly urged establishing this office, as have those in charge of government agencies investigating UAP in other countries.
I have gathered a powerful coalition of high level government, military and scientific experts who support a rational, scientific approach to the UFO problem, as outlined here. We are all fortunate that such respectable figures have offered advice on how to frame this sensitive issue and work effectively with our government. Doesn't it make sense to take our cues from them? I invite all of those who are serious about UFOs to align themselves with this well-tested, productive approach. Once we have even the smallest change in the official position -- such as acknowledgement that UAP are worthy of investigation -- the door is opened. After that, anything will be possible.
Latest-UFO-Sightings: Thousands of People Already Signed a ...
Sign up for intelligent life: Thousands petition Obama to reveal ...
Thousands Signing Petition for White House UFO Disclosure |
There aren't any real "UFOs" of any kind and there never were. If there had been, we'd all know it already. It would be an indisputable fact in the world, not the subject of a fossilised pseudoscientific myth and collective delusion.
There are no "UFO" facts in the world. The century-old origin of the idea--impossible ubiquitous phantom airships--exposes its absurdity and informs that simple negative statement of fact about the world.
This should be all the proof any rational mind requires about this non-issue. Absence of evidence is very good evidence of the failure of an hypothesis.
Finally, there has been limited disclosure by the U.S. Govt. agencies, lots of it, but unfortunately, about 90% of it was blacked out pages.
It will indeed be a brave Govt. to come forward to finally say - here's the truth - because in order to do so would be to admit that previous administrations have lied, and thus render the Government no longer 'of the people and for the people' but for the government and private interests. The important question to ask is - whether the Govt. believes that the 99% need protection from information about ET's, which seems to still be the case.
This begs the question, if true UFOs have been proven to exist (as Kean acknowledges) and are technologically beyond the capabilities of any nation on Earth, then who exactly is making them. Captain Nemo? Leprechauns? Rather than being "fantastic," "nonsensical," or "unscientific," the extraterrestrial hypothesis is a perfectly logical and scientific hypothesis as to the origins of these flying objects once their reality and artificiality is acknowledged.
I think the wording expresses the frustration of those tired of all the semantic hairsplitting. You can't acknowledge the UFOs are real, artificial objects not made by humans and pretend that the then likely extraterrestrial origins question is not a part of it.
This has been, in fact, the usually secret and classified conclusion of a number governmental and private studies from the very beginning, such as the USAF's Project Sign in 1948 or the Swedish investigation into "ghost rockets" in 1946:
http://tinyurl.com/1948-USAF-Top-Secret-document
It is all very well that a 'junior staffer' can so glibly discount the epetition - was that Junior staffer fully briefed on the phenomenon? Did he sit down with the Cometa report and give it some thought? Rifle his way through the full Blue Book notes and papers? I'm guessing not - but the point is, if not then why not...? If you can't even begin to engage with the evidence already there then why would even more evidence of exactly the same nature - bearing in mind our models of approach are not going to change - make the slightest bit of difference?
The problem has never been about 'evidence' - it is more about the controlling and influencing and access to that evidence. (FYI Mr Larson, refer to the experiences of Senator Goldwater...) All very well asking for a new 'agency' but without access to relevant info - it becomes a waste of time and public money entirely. And we have had enough of those ;)
The phenomenon is there and won't be wished away.
How many of you have read the works of Charles Hall? He is about as credible as you can get and has testimony that if believed blows the lid off of the coverup. He discusses the types of crafts that are housed at military black sites, some that are used to move between star systems and some are used locally around the solar system.
How many reliable military and scientific witnesses does one need before the light goes off? it is the biggest story in all of human history ( after Jesus Christ in my humble opinion) and the governments of the world know that it would be madness to tell the truth; Many could not accept it and in many ways it could destabilize many aspects of our world, but the shame of getting caught in obvious lies and coverups is more they are willing to risk.
Having personally witnessed an anti-gravity craft, a massive one, at close range, i know that such technology exists and is here. I cannot say if what we saw was a government project or an alien one...but if we have the ability to move huge craft at very slow speeds, or hover and make no sound then why are we wasting so much oil/ Ahh, there it is...the technology that could free mankind from fossil fuels will not be allowed unless the ultra rich can make more the other way.
I agree the petitions could have been better, but no matter how we word it the govt will deny it all. if they will not believe nuclear missle officers and astronauts they do so because they have much to hide ndlittle reason to tell the truth.
However, I have lived in Washington DC for the past 15 years and know many senior DoD, Intelligence and Civilian civil servants. I do not believe in government conspiracies. I believe apathy and incompetence explain far more than we realize.
Quoting Ed Rothschild on how to get the Govt to cough up a full disclosure on the UFO phenomenon is like quoting Osama Bin Laden on the good intentions of Al Quaeda. Podesta Group make money by kissing the ass of public officials so they can bill their clients for the privilege. If the Obama administration says the moon is made of cheese, Podesta Group is going to say it is Swiss. Hello, Rothschild?
So, file FOIA requests and follow them up with lawsuits since Ediscovery rules are more rigorous than FOIA. If some law firm wishes to distinguish themselves by serving the public good, they will form a practice of litigating these issues pro bono.
Finally, I want to say I feel sorry for Leslie Kean because she is pleading with her generation for transparency....which her generation does not value. She may not see the full fruit of her labors unfortunately. But the younger generation will not tolerate keeping things like this a secret. So it is a matter of time and I advocate getting aggressive.
Thx,
B
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA
IF this is the case, then there are no UFO's as the space crafts are well enough known to the authorities.
Besides, why pin your belief or dis-belief on such controversy, when cases like Lakenheath 1956 exist? Even the Condon Report, the US Air Force-commissioned official study on UFO's concluded: "In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high" Some skeptics will argue that it was all false radar returns. Don't listen to 'em! Because the Condon investigating scientists examined exactly that possibility, and said: "It seems inconceivable that an anomalous [radar] propagation echo would behave in the manner described, particularly with respect to the reported altitude changes, even if AP had been likely at the time. In view of the meteorological situation, it would seem that AP was rather unlikely. Besides, what is the probability that an AP [radar] return would appear only once, and at that time appear to execute a perfect practice ILS approach?"
There are other similarly strong cases. The Minot B-52 data should be looked at by anyone who thinks "UFO's are nonsense!", because it involves groups of Air Force ground witnesses, from 4 locations, and a B-52 crew flying over the UAP, all describing the same strange object near our nuclear missile sites... with that object being caught on separate radars, ground and air.
Or the RB-47 case... or others. The point is, there is plenty to keep a healthy, rational, skeptical mind interested in this topic without having to first trudge through that mess that is 'Roswell.' That's become the worst of UAP research, and will just turn many immediately away. Anyone who starts with the good information (Bluebook Special Report 14, Condon Report, Dr. James McDonald, Dr. Peter Sturrock) will find plenty of reason to conclude that there simply must be something more to the phenomenon than mis-identification and delusion.
64 years after the modern UFO era started and that;s the best you can suggest? Go back to Blue Book?
Bluebook was a PR campaign, where the very organization tasked with defending our airspace was put in the position of having to admit or deny that real, physical objects are in our skies which they can do nothing about. So what did the USAF do? Of COURSE they denied it. I'm not excusing them, and I find the well-documented and effective campaign of witness ridicule to be particularly despicable, but you can understand how it happened.
I hear Ms. Kean proposing a *civilian* organization, no?
Or, Ian, are you saying that the UFO thing's already been done, the issue therefore settled?
Have you read the Condon report? And the critiques of it by Physicists Page, McDonald, Sturrock, etc.?
Does Condon's dismissive summary agree with the section summaries by his investigating scientists, or the final tally of 30% unknown? No!!! How could it, with statements like the following in the Report's body:
--"The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting."
or
--"The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in
this case."
or
--"There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the radar-visual files that have no plausible explanation such as propagation phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects."
Plenty more... and that's "official." Too bad it wasn't science by committee!!