John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs

[zoobyshoe]

Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for.

I've seen UFOs twice.

The first time I was a kid and saw what looked to be a double row of red lights moving horizontally across the sky, but see-sawing as it moved. My younger sister saw it too, but the last time I asked her about this, she says she doesn't remember it. The second time was more like what you described: mysterious yellow balls that were dancing around overhead in an overcast sky with a distinctly 'non-ballistic' motion. Eventually one joined up with another one, and they all disappeared. This was seen by a whole line of people standing outside a movie theater (25-30 people).

The first one could have been a hoax. The second is harder to explain, because, as you say, the lights had no feeling of solidity to them. They seemed to be 'glowing balls of light.' The first one in my first sighting seemed to be a solid craft while the second ones didn't. They seemed like some inexplicable light phenomenon.

Anyway, though, I was not rattled by the experiences anywhere near as much as I am rattled when there's an earthquake here. I find earthquakes to be profoundly disturbing experiences.

 

[russ_watters]

Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for. Only about 10% of people ever see a UFO. Of all sightings, only about 5% remain unexplained after careful investigation. So there is a residuum of thousands of unexplained cases. Once you have seen a UFO, you will want to understand it, as it challenges our notions of reality. If you really don't want to see a UFO and have your notions of reality challenged, I would advise always looking down, and never up.

What is your definition of "UFO"? I'm an amateur astronomer (btw, so is Drakkith) and I'm always looking up. I very often see things I can't well identify (UFOs?), but based on my knowledge of what is up there, I often see things that others wouldn't be able to identify, but I can -- and the ones I can't identify, I can think of feasible explanations. Do they still count as UFOs if they turn out to be Venus, an iridium flare or an airplane, but no one ever conclusively proves that?

The number of publicly known sightings that would qualify as "reality challenging" are not in the thousands, they are in the dozens at most. And the fact that none have been able to be compellingly shown to people who didn't participate in the sighting - despite virtually everyone carrying an HD video camera everywhere they go - is telling.

The main problem with UFOs is that people let their imaginations run free and end up describing what they think they say (a flying saucer, just above the trees!) instead of what they actually say (a moving point of light).

 

[Dotini]

What is your definition of "UFO"? I'm an amateur astronomer (btw, so is Drakkith) and I'm always looking up. I very often see things I can't well identify (UFOs?), but based on my knowledge of what is up there, I often see things that others wouldn't be able to identify, but I can -- and the ones I can't identify, I can think of feasible explanations. Do they still count as UFOs if they turn out to be Venus, an iridium flare or an airplane, but no one ever conclusively proves that?

Actually I prefer the term UAP, or unidentified aerial phenomena, as the term UFO is too freighted with emotions and preconceptions. If a sighting is diligently investigated and resists explanation by all prosaic means, it should be classified as as an unknown, or unexplained. I would avoid the term prove or proof.

I've seen UFOs twice.

The first time I was a kid and saw what looked to be a double row of red lights moving horizontally across the sky, but see-sawing as it moved. My younger sister saw it too, but the last time I asked her about this, she says she doesn't remember it. The second time was more like what you described: mysterious yellow balls that were dancing around overhead in an overcast sky with a distinctly 'non-ballistic' motion. Eventually one joined up with another one, and they all disappeared. This was seen by a whole line of people standing outside a movie theater (25-30 people).

The first one could have been a hoax. The second is harder to explain, because, as you say, the lights had no feeling of solidity to them. They seemed to be 'glowing balls of light.' The first one in my first sighting seemed to be a solid craft while the second ones didn't. They seemed like some inexplicable light phenomenon.

Anyway, though, I was not rattled by the experiences anywhere near as much as I am rattled when there's an earthquake here. I find earthquakes to be profoundly disturbing experiences.

Your second sighting resembled my first.

I would agree earthquakes are more immediately frightening. I've endured three. In '01 I was walking alongside the Duwamish river outside the Boeing Renton plant where I worked. The quake set all the bridges across the river rattling and bouncing up and down with such an unholy clatter I thought they were going to fall in! I hugged a tree until the damned thing passed.

But to return to John Podesta and his disclosure ideas, I'm ambivalent. I'm sure there exists UAP phenomena, but do not believe there is an ET presence in our solar system. If the government merely confirmed the existence of an unknown natural phenomenon without raising concern over ETs, then that could be a positive development for society and science, as it would remove the stigma of serious investigation.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for. Only about 10% of people ever see a UFO. Of all sightings, only about 5% remain unexplained after careful investigation. So there is a residuum of thousands of unexplained cases. Once you have seen a UFO, you will want to understand it, as it challenges our notions of reality. If you really don't want to see a UFO and have your notions of reality challenged, I would advise always looking down, and never up.

I doubt it would change my view of reality.

Science is about the observable and repeatable. Something like an unexplained UFO is not repeatable (at least by us) and therefore not open to scientific scrutiny. Science is only one belief system among many. Pick one.

I like science. It explains lots of stuff and gives insight into far more (emergent behavior for example). But I don't think it is the end all be all of reality. The universe has much that is unknown and probably unknowable. Because of this, I can say with confidence, "I don't know."

Science is a process, a journey. To me it is about the joy of discovery, not the shackles of false certainty.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If the government merely confirmed the existence of an unknown natural phenomenon without raising concern over ETs, then that could be a positive development for society and science, as it would remove the stigma of serious investigation.

It doesn't seem to me the government is in the position to confirm unknown natural phenomena. All they might be able to do is release anecdotal eyewitness reports they might have.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Playing devils advocate for a moment. WHAT IF, he knows something we don't? What if he knows of some tangible viable evidence that can not be explained away?

Looking at the video tells me he's expressing frustration at not having gotten access to the information he wanted to see. I don't see any indication he's hinting he saw something everyone else should know about. He regrets not having secured the release of information because that meant he, himself, wasn't able to see it.

 

[gjonesy]

Looking at the video tells me he's expressing frustration at not having gotten access to the information

Well in "this" instance yes. In others he speaks as though he knows (something) that is solid proof. Remember this guy has been obsessed with this for quite some time. And it could very well be like the tons of other evidence. (now playing the other devils advocate) Much of which has been debunked as misidentification. Others that have been "classified" could very well be top-secret next gen government aircraft. Remember the SR71 the stealth bomber and the F117 stealth fighter. These are among some of those misidentifications. In 20 years once its old and there have been enough leaks and it becomes declassified perhaps we will find out its been "us" all along. But by then we may have more top-secret aircraft and more rumors of strange lights in the night sky.

Note: I'm not a supporter nor am I a skeptic...not yet anyways. I've seen things I can't logically explain. That doesn't mean a logical explanation doesn't exist. just saying

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well in "this" instance yes. In others he speaks as though he knows (something) that is solid proof. Remember this guy has been obsessed with this for quite some time. And it could very well be like the tons of other evidence. (now playing the other devils advocate) Much of which has been debunked as misidentification. Others that have been "classified" could very well be top-secret next gen government aircraft. Remember the SR71 the stealth bomber and the F117 stealth fighter. These are among some of those misidentifications. In 20 years once its old and there have been enough leaks and it becomes declassified perhaps we will find out its been "us" all along. But by then we may have more top-secret aircraft and more rumors of strange lights in the night sky.

Note: I'm not a supporter nor am I a skeptic...not yet anyways. I've seen things I can't logically explain. That doesn't mean a logical explanation doesn't exist. just saying

Something else to consider is the controversy over what gets classified. I just learned about this from reading up on the Clinton email scandal. Here's some stuff from the wikipedia article:

The Associated Press reported that "Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch — a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification."[59] Jeffrey Toobin, in an August 2015 New Yorker article, wrote that the Clinton email affair is an illustration of overclassification, a problem written about by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his book Secrecy: The American Experience.[55] Toobin writes that "government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security."[55] Toobin wrote that "It's not only the public who cannot know the extent or content of government secrecy. Realistically, government officials can’t know either—and this is Hillary Clinton's problem.[55] Toobin noted that "one of Clinton's potentially classified email exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones" and wrote: "That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets."[55]

Richard Lempert, in an analysis of the Clinton email controversy published by the Brookings Institution, wrote that "security professionals have a reputation for erring in the direction of overclassification."[82] Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, says that "The odds are good that any classified information in the Clinton emails should not have been classified," since an estimated 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could be made public without risking national security.[82] Nate Jones, an expert with the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said: "Clinton's mistreatment of federal records and the intelligence community's desire to retroactively overclassify are two distinct troubling problems. No politician is giving the right message: Blame Clinton for poor records practices, but don't embrace overclassification while you do it."[82]

I thought the sentence:"Toobin writes that 'government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security.' " might apply to whatever is classified about UFOs.

 

[gjonesy]

,

in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security.' " might apply to whatever is classified about UFOs.

Yeah very true, but once again motives for classification especially in aircraft could very well be in place for reasons of national security. Hypothetically let's say we had a drone we could deploy, that was invisible to radar had weapons/surveillance capabilities could fly at 70,000 feet, that could hover and fly in all directions and fly at mach 13 when it needs to allude a pursuing aircraft. And it was purpose built not to be identifiable and could be destroyed remotely and leave no trace that it ever existed? This is something you wouldn't want on the six o:clock news seeing as how foreign countries both allies and enemies monitor us this way. And if Podesta isn't in the need to know or have clearance to such things he may only be aware of what's been reported. I know for a fact the government keeps secrets from government officials without clearance.Personal Note:
BTW the thing I saw that was unexplainable was an object, that could be seen with the naked eye didn't appear to be well lit and had no light on it but was reflecting ambient light. The moon was very bright that night. It traversed the night sky from north to south in just a few seconds and made no sound. It was witnessed by another LEO. We inquired as to what it could have been and were told the International space station was visible with the naked eye and could fly that fast across the sky. Is this true?...just wondering.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I

Contrast this to the Republican party, in which you can unironically say that you think that angels are real and the Earth is 6000 years old and in some states have that considered a good thing for your viability as a candidate and anyone who says otherwise is part of a conspiracy to annihilate your religious beliefs. A fantasy about aliens visiting Earth is downright playful by comparison.

Your bias is showing. I'm sure there are Christian Democrats too.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

,

Personal Note:
BTW the thing I saw that was unexplainable was an object, that could be seen with the naked eye didn't appear to be well lit and had no light on it but was reflecting ambient light. The moon was very bright that night. It traversed the night sky from north to south in just a few seconds and made no sound. It was witnessed by another LEO. We inquired as to what it could have been and were told the International space station was visible with the naked eye and could fly that fast across the sky. Is this true?...just wondering.

When I was in the Army, I pulled guard duty 1200 to 0400 hrs. We were on FTX at the NTC in Fort Irwin (Mojave). You could see the space station, but it looked like a large star, and took several minutes to traverse the observable sky.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Your bias is showing. I'm sure there are Christian Democrats too.

And your bias is showing. I'm a Christian and most of us are not young earthers. The Roman Catholic Church (our largest denomination) never rejected Darwinism, etc. (Humani Generis, 1950)

Oddly young Earth beliefs have been dropping among Republicans. This might be the result of demographic shifts raising the possibility that the Republican party is losing the fundamentalists.

 

[jack476]

Your bias is showing. I'm sure there are Christian Democrats too.

I didn't say "Christian", I said "Young Earth creationist". Of course there are Christian Democrats, but creationism is overwhelmingly a Republican cause.

 

[Dotini]

Please confine your remarks to the topic, gentlemen.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Please confine your remarks to the topic, gentlemen.

Sorry Dotini, still trying to get a feel for the forums. Unlike so many others, it seems this site is well disciplined.

 

[zoobyshoe]

,Yeah very true, but once again motives for classification especially in aircraft could very well be in place for reasons of national security. Hypothetically let's say we had a drone we could deploy, that was invisible to radar had weapons/surveillance capabilities could fly at 70,000 feet, that could hover and fly in all directions and fly at mach 13 when it needs to allude a pursuing aircraft. And it was purpose built not to be identifiable and could be destroyed remotely and leave no trace that it ever existed? This is something you wouldn't want on the six o:clock news seeing as how foreign countries both allies and enemies monitor us this way. And if Podesta isn't in the need to know or have clearance to such things he may only be aware of what's been reported. I know for a fact the government keeps secrets from government officials without clearance.

All obviously true and the alternative I would consider most likely, rather than the notion an authentic alien craft is being kept somewhere being reverse engineered. Or that alien bodies exist somewhere.

 

[gjonesy]

All obviously true and the alternative I would consider most likely, rather than the notion an authentic alien craft is being kept somewhere being reverse engineered. Or that alien bodies exist somewhere.

Mach 13 super sonic stealth spy drone with recon/attack capabilities would definitely be above John Podesta's pay grade, but wouldn't they just tell him something just to shut him up? To keep the peace and preserve the continuity of government so that he appears competent? I agree totally ! that is a big possibility, there is something buzzing around out there at night ,its probably man made and has the occasional witness and I am probably one of them. BUT there are "phenomena" like dotini spoke of that the government has investigated and released Laughable conclusions,...case in point "Brown Mountain Lights". I've never seen them but my folks have, what they describe couldn't have been swamp gas or moon light reflected off of fog.
.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

...case in point "Brown Mountain Lights". I've never seen them but my folks have, what they describe couldn't have been swamp gas or moon light reflected off of fog.
.

They've never been able to explain the Marfa lights in TX either. There are no swamps between San Antonio and El Paso..

 

[Dotini]

"Brown Mountain Lights"

Marfa lights

Even more credible recurring unexplained natural phenomena are the Hessdalen lights of Norway, investigated in situ for years by European scientists and university students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_lights
http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml
http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

• 
• 

 

[russ_watters]

Oy. Those are among the worst types of "UFO"sightings, IMO - right up there with mistaking Venus or an airplane for a UFO...because those have pretty much been conclusively proven to be car headlights and aircraft lights.

I think this thread has run its course and we don't do "debunk this UFO photo" threads. Locked.