John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs

  • #27
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
In order to support the claim that extraterrestrials have visited the Earth in the past, one has to claim that the lack of conclusive evidence is the result of a truly vast conspiracy for which there is also no evidence.

And do keep in mind that the conspirators in question, ie the US government, have honestly just a really terrible track record when it comes to keeping secrets.
UFO-related government documents over 60 years old remain classified.
The link below is a decent introduction to the history of government secrecy on this topic.

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15450/some-ideas-about-digging/
NBC didn’t take the Hillary Clinton UFO bait during Sunday night’s primary debate, staged just a couple of weeks after the former Secretary of State vowed to “get to the bottom of” The Great Taboo. As per tradition, the mainstream media tossed a lot of confetti in the air over her UFO remarks before getting bored and wandering off. But in doing so, they forget – assuming they ever knew – about the formidable and unremitting curiosity of Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.

In 2002, the former Clinton White House chief of staff joined the ad hoc Coalition for Freedom of Information in a federal lawsuit against NASA for access to files related to the so-called Kecksburg incident of 1965. Although that initiative, spearheaded by independent investigative journalist Leslie Kean, produced no smoking gun, the effort shook loose hundreds of previously unreleased documents, revealed that many others had been destroyed or went missing, and forced the space agency to pay the plaintiff's legal fees.

digging.jpg

It's going to be a long and tedious slog, but any hopes of reaching the ground floor of Uncle Sam's relationship with UFOs will require punching through layers of bureaucratic sediment/CREDIT: bovilla.com

We may never know what, if anything, Podesta attempted to accomplish on the UFO front during his time as senior adviser in the Obama White House. But he has a roadmap for how to attack the archives on multiple fronts. Or rather, he has access to a strategy promoted by a network of scholars, historians and researchers known as the Sign Historical Group (SHG).
 
  • #28
743
142
UFOs are a matter of faith. The fact that they are unidentified (by definition) makes them untestable and not part of science.

Like rains of frogs and other miracles they are rare enough that any hypothesis is untestable. Sure there are reasonable explanations, but without repeatable data, believe what you want.

Having lived in Roswell, NM, and thus studied lots of UFO reports, I can say definitively, "I have no idea what's going on."
 
  • #29
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
 
  • #30
6,265
1,275
I think it's a nice gift to us.
I'm not sure what you mean. My take on it is simply that the CIA didn't (and probably still doesn't) want the public to know anything about what it's doing. I think if we could examine more CIA memos we'd find ones urging agents to be more careful about disclosing how many bathrooms there are at CIA headquarters and how much toilet paper they go through per month in the event that info might be of use to foreign powers.
 
  • #31
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
Podesta ‘encourages’ journalists to ask Hillary about UFOs
MARCH 3, 2016

"Democrat operative John Podesta is so obsessed with what the government knows about aliens and UFOs, he has actually asked reporters to question his candidate on the fringe subject.

The shocking revelation comes from an interview the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign gave to CBS 8, which aired Wednesday night."

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/report-podesta-asked-journalists-to-ask-hillary-about-declassifying-ufo-files/
 
  • #32
263
179
Democrat operative John Podesta is so obsessed with what the government knows about aliens and UFOs, he has actually asked reporters to question his candidate on the fringe subject.

The shocking revelation comes from an interview the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign gave to CBS 8, which aired Wednesday night."

I'm not sure what you mean. My take on it is simply that the CIA didn't (and probably still doesn't) want the public to know anything about what it's doing. I think if we could examine more CIA memos we'd find ones urging agents to be more careful about disclosing how many bathrooms there are at CIA headquarters and how much toilet paper they go through per month in the event that info might be of use to foreign powers.

Yeah we all know how honest and forthcoming our government is with its miss, er um its "information" lol . Lets face this in our own honest way, consider this, Iran contra, training Islamic terrorist, Monica Lewinski and bikini atoll. Things like this weren't reveled to the public till it was politically advantageous for someone in the know. Most of these things amounted to mud slinging for shifts in power. IF by some chance there is evidence the government has and if John Podesta is in the "know" about something kept secret within our government, is he pushing for a revel for political gain? Or is he secretly working for the other side trying to sow seeds of doubt in the competency of his own parties candidate? Is it for publicity? What has he to gain? The more I read about it the more complex and fascinating the potential motive becomes. There are many possibilities, but if he's doing it sincerely because he wants to prove it to the country then if the government wants to keep it secret then he's going to be labeled a crackpot or he's gonna end up having and unfortunate accident. I'm thinking(Crackpot) regardless of what the truth may or may not be.
 
  • #33
6,265
1,275
I'm thinking(Crackpot) regardless of what the truth may or may not be.
The article I linked to in post #15 points out that more "smart people" have weird beliefs than you'd suppose. Weird beliefs are suppressed at PF, so this is not apparent among PF members. In real life, according to Shermer, you encounter more science types who harbor weird beliefs than you'd expect; a scientific attitude is supposed to be a prophylactic against this kind of belief, but this isn't born out by reality. So, the chances he is merely a smart person/crackpot are quite reasonable.
 
  • #34
263
179
The article I linked to in post #15 points out that more "smart people" have weird beliefs than you'd suppose. Weird beliefs are suppressed at PF, so this is not apparent among PF members. In real life, according to Shermer, you encounter more science types who harbor weird beliefs than you'd expect; a scientific attitude is supposed to be a prophylactic against this kind of belief, but this isn't born out by reality. So, the chances he is merely a smart person/crackpot are quite reasonable.
Well lots of (labeled crackpottery) in some cases are proven true. Whether John Podesta will pan out remains to be seen. To out right deny the possibility of anything that we lack the ability to totally disprove is an over abundance of pride. In some cases it challenges established religious/dogmatic/doctrine/ and or even nonreligious beliefs, for some its equivalent to heresy. For admitting to a "possibility" you may establish a possibility for something else (that goes against a belief) or an impossibility for the other (lack of belief). IMHO its completely unscientific to do so.
 
  • #36
6,265
1,275
To out right deny the possibility of anything that we lack the ability to totally disprove is an over abundance of pride.
I'm glad you said this because I need to inform you that you are being controlled by an invisible, insensible weird purple jellyfish. It is sitting on your head with its tentacles inserted into your brain, whereby it controls your thoughts and motivations. It is composed of matter unknown to science and undetectable by any known means. I mention it because you have a right to know, and I'm glad to hear you do not possess an over abundance of pride that would lead you to deny this possibility.

Feynman's take on extraterrestrial visits to earth was that, rather than get balled up asserting they can't be disproven, ask yourself if they are probable. In his estimation, the probability of such visits was so low it was not worth getting worked up about the un-disprovable possibility. Occam's razor: before we resort to extraterrestrial explanations of various reports, let us first explore known phenomena for the explanations.
 
  • #37
743
142
The article I linked to in post #15 points out that more "smart people" have weird beliefs than you'd suppose. Weird beliefs are suppressed at PF, so this is not apparent among PF members. In real life, according to Shermer, you encounter more science types who harbor weird beliefs than you'd expect; a scientific attitude is supposed to be a prophylactic against this kind of belief, but this isn't born out by reality. So, the chances he is merely a smart person/crackpot are quite reasonable.
Two points:

Scientists are the easiest people in the world to fool. They believe what they see. Manipulate what they see, and you can make them believe anything. That's why academic honesty is so important.

Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's not crackpottery. Crackpottery is more about convoluted logic and lack of evidence than it is about truth or falsehood.
 
  • #38
6,265
1,275
Scientists are the easiest people in the world to fool. They believe what they see. Manipulate what they see, and you can make them believe anything. That's why academic honesty is so important.
Not because "they believe what they see", but because they think they are better at analyzing what they see than they actually are in some cases:
Shermer said:
But ask any magician (I have asked lots) and they will tell you that there is no better audience than a room full of scientists, academics, or, best of all, members of the high I.Q. club Mensa. Members of such cohorts, by virtue of their intelligence and education, think they will be better at discerning the secrets of the magician, but since they aren’t, they are easier to fool, because in watching the tricks so intensely they more easily fall for the misdirection cues. The magician James “the Amazing” Randi, one of the smartest people I know, gleefully deceives Nobel laureates with the simplest of magic, knowing that intelligence is unrelated (or perhaps in this case slightly inversely correlated) to the ability to discern the real magic behind the tricks. Tellingly, over the years I have given a number of lectures to Mensa groups around the country and have been struck by the number of weird beliefs such exceptionally smart people hold, including and especially ESP. At one conference there was much discussion about whether Mensa members also had higher Psi.Q.s (Psychic Quotient) than regular people!
Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's not crackpottery. Crackpottery is more about convoluted logic and lack of evidence than it is about truth or falsehood.
I more or less agree with this. You can believe something that is true but have arrived at the belief by crackpot logic. Therefore, regardless of the truth of the belief, you are really a crackpot.
 
  • #39
263
179
you that you are being controlled by an invisible, insensible weird purple jellyfish. It is sitting on your head with its tentacles inserted into your brain, whereby it controls your thoughts and motivations. It is composed of matter unknown to science
HEY! Leave the little purple guy attached to my brain out of this, this is about John Podesta and if he has damaged his credibility to the point of no return or if he actually believes or possibly knows of compelling viable evidence in the possession of the government. And there is the use of the P word "probability" its the ultimate scientific safe word denoting a quantity between 0-1. Zero being impossible and one being a scientific certainty. Its alway either used negitively or positively. Its one of sciences religious words i know but it leaves that tiny bit of wiggle room so that if by some wild stretch of the imagination something happens to pop up with some undeniable truth attached the nay sayers can say....well i didn't say it was impossible i knew all along there was a chance it could happen.

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? Science will be the first area to raise its skeptical sheilds and say...."well just becauae we can't explain it doesnt mean it came from an advanced alien society." Anything that violates known physics will undoubtedly be rejected out right. And something like this would do that. But then there are the many unknowns in the area of sciences that within any of the feilds that would be affected by something like this scientists would cling to the hope of an alternative explanation or "debunking" with the vigar of a religious zelot until a new discovery that would make said evidence a strong possibility. Interstellar space travel being in any way theoretically possible is still a no no....if we cant do it.....then hey nobody can. But what if tomorrow there is a breakthrough discovery that raises an eyebrow and makes this more of a tangible possibility? Thats why aliens and God and premonitions will always be in the (well thats not probable category ) that is until we can give sound scientific basis for such things. I once saw a monster 4x4 chevy corvette stinray....a mechanic would say (well thats not probable)......but it is possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
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?
The Brookings Report took the position that the discovery of extraterrestrial life in our solar system could be disruptive to human society and suggest a coverup would be justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

The RAND report seemed to take a softer view.
https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=12280&s=2e7c78d706e4211b6cc0f65c973266a7

Both these studies took place long ago, but I don't know if the essential facts have changed. Because I'm very conservative, I tend to agree with the Brookings report. But because I have seen UFOs several times from fairly close range, I am convinced they are natural phenomena akin to lightning, but sometimes appear to behave in an "intelligent" fashion, which is very disconcerting.
 
  • #41
nsaspook
Science Advisor
908
1,134
UFOs sighting seemly have decreased as the technology to capture sightings with high-fidelity recordings has increased to the point of saturation 24/7 coverage in large areas of the planet.

settled.png
 
  • #42
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
UFOs sighting seemly have decreased as the technology to capture sightings with high-fidelity recordings has increased to the point of saturation 24/7 coverage in large areas of the planet.
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.
 
  • #43
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
8,990
6,658
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.
uh huh, so they are never going to see something flying above them to video it anyway haha
kinda kills the inference from the graph !! :rolleyes::wink:

settled[1].png
 
  • #44
nsaspook
Science Advisor
908
1,134
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.
It's a lot more than just cell phones world-wide, just look at what happened in Russia with a random flying object. :))
 
  • #45
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
8,990
6,658
It's a lot more than just cell phones world-wide, just look at what happened in Russia with a random flying object. :))
That one happened in a country where almost everyone has a dash cam in their vehicle. I don't know about the USA,
but they are becoming more common over here in Oz. Even seriously considering getting one myself because of the
increasing number of idiot drivers out there :frown:

Dave
 
  • #46
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,702
4,384
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.
Peripheral vision is a thing, you know. :wink:
 
  • #47
314
122
The Brookings Report took the position that the discovery of extraterrestrial life in our solar system could be disruptive to human society and suggest a coverup would be justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

The RAND report seemed to take a softer view.
https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=12280&s=2e7c78d706e4211b6cc0f65c973266a7

Both these studies took place long ago, but I don't know if the essential facts have changed.
The facts haven't, but attitudes certainly have. The attitudes towards anthropology, culture, politics, science, and society where they can be extended to deal with the possibility of alien contact. In that part of history, it was possible to keep scientific works as large as the Manhattan project a secret, but in 2016 there is exactly zero chance of a project of similar magnitude (as in-depth study of extraterrestrial culture or technology would no doubt be) staying secret for very long. Compared to 50 years ago, government secrecy is politically troublesome for elected officials, we consider whistleblowers to be heroes instead of traitors, and no scientist's career would survive a prolonged period of not being allowed to publish. The world's too small for secrets now.

At the height of the Cold War, where alien technology that was superior to anything on Earth could have turned out to be last resort should worst have come to worst, there would have been good reason for the government to stay quiet about it. In 2016 the stakes aren't nearly as high, and if the US government did turn out to be sitting on alien technology then in the current political climate I'm inclined to think that they would want everyone to know about it. And on top of that whoever managed to be first to market with the superior technology would be rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Because I'm very conservative, I tend to agree with the Brookings report. But because I have seen UFOs several times from fairly close range, I am convinced they are natural phenomena akin to lightning, but sometimes appear to behave in an "intelligent" fashion, which is very disconcerting.
So why not get some pictures for us the next time that happens, and we can settle this once and for all?
 
  • #48
6,265
1,275
  • #49
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
Peripheral vision is a thing, you know. :wink:
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.

As a mountaineer in remote places in Alaska, Canada, Washington and Peru, I developed a habit of constantly scanning the skies for changes in the weather as if my life depended upon it. Because it did. As a racing driver, I kept 100% focus on the track and cars around me as if my life and fortunes depended upon it. Because they did. As a fencer, I maintain focus on the position of my opponent and his/her actions with the blade. If we want to see things, it starts with maintaining focus and attention. If you want to see UFOs, it starts with looking up.
So why not get some pictures for us the next time that happens, and we can settle this once and for all?
Pictures and videos can be easily faked, especially these days. Pictures and videos won't settle anything. To my knowledge, there has never, ever, been a UFO caught, killed, captured or in any way obtained for study as an object, piece or particles in a laboratory. They seem to be elusive, transitory, temporary, ephemeral events rather than permanent objects.

My observation of UFOs follows that pattern. Three times over five decades I, together with other witnesses with me, have seen large, nearby glowing balls of light doing funny things in daytime. These glowing balls appeared fuzzy, sometimes changed in number, shape, size and color, and eventually disappeared. In no way did they seem like solid objects. Perhaps you have seen photos or videos of ball lightning? They were like that, what I take to be a rare, distinctly odd electrical phenomena.
 
  • #50
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,702
4,384
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.
Uh, that's nice?
 

Related Threads for: John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
705
Views
122K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
Top