UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > Oct > Oct 1

Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:18:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 11:49:33 -0400
Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up - Randle


>From: Christopher Allan <cda.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:15:47 +0100
>Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up

>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:28:44 +0200
>>Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up

>>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:46:05 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up

>>>How does the US government manage to have the same
>>>control over crashing UFOs when such incidents can
>>>happen, unpredictably, anywhere in the world, at any
>>>time? Why do ETH believers always manage to avoid
>>>giving a sensible answer to this obvious question?

>>The idea that it would be impossible to control all UFO crahes,
>>in any part of the world, is worth consideration. For me, after
>>thinking about it, it does not sound all that impossible. The
>>first reason is that, contrary to many rumors, alleged crashes
>>have been probably in very limited numbers (and, yes, there have
>>been many false rumors of crashes). The second reason is that
>>there is no piece of land in the whole world which escapes
>>military control, by one nation or another. And I don't see any
>>government and military establishment willing to release such
>>information. Any crash of an unknown craft will fall
>>automatically under military control. The third reason is that
>>there is not one country in this world with a totally free and
>>independant press. They will keep quiet if they are asked to. If
>>a mall paper or radio does not conform, it will soon be in
>>serious trouble. Remember the call to KGFL radio in Roswell.

>>So, it is quite plausible that a few authentic crashes were
>>successfully controlled, and the information suppressed, or at
>>least severely limited, and impaired by debunking operations.
>>Still, what we see is a certain amount of independant
>>informations and testimonies coming out about some alleged
>>crashes. This is the case for Roswell and, recently, for
>>Varginha in Brazil, in spite of obvious military cover-up. In
>>short, for a UFO crash to be impossible to cover-up, it would
>>have to happen right in the middle of a big city, I imagine. In
>>any other place, it could probably be done.

>>In the case of Roswell, some testimonies have become fragile and
>>had to be discarded. But who knows why for sure? There are
>>several possibilities, from simple liers to real witnesses being
>>influenced to alter their testimony, for instance.

>But you are assuming a lot here. You take it for granted that
>those countries where the crashes occurred would want to cover
>up the fact. You assume that the military in each of these
>countries would get there first, before anyone else, and demand
>silence on the part of the civilian population, the press and
>other media. This is simply going along with Stan Friedman and
>his nonsensical 'cosmic Watergate'. Why on earth should such a
>vital scientific discovery as this be covered up at all? Can
>you name any other discovery that would be covered up in this
>way (and for six decades at that)?

I think we all are assuming a lot here. We assume that UFOs are
filling the skies, that each country in the world takes notice
of them and that cases that involve more than simple eyewitness
testimony are frequent. But what if these assumptions are
untrue. That changes the nature of the conspiracy.

If we assume that the Roswell crash was of an extraterrestrial
craft, and that the military, though good fortune was the first
of the government agencies to arrive on the scene, then we can
draw a couple of conclusions.

First, while their initial response was to announce the
recovery, within hours, that story took a backseat to the
balloon retrieval. Even though they could not control what the
aliens did, they would assume they could control the spread of
the information. More than once I have seen this in operation.
It means quite simply that those leaders who have taken control
do not worry about possible future events, but instead worry
about what they have in their hands at that time. They will
classify the material and hope for the best. If it is
compromised in other arenas, then so be it, but if not, then
they have retained control.

Second, we look at the lists of possible other crashes. Some of
them top two hundred and I have contributed to this with my
books. However, we must also scan those lists for hoaxes (Aztec,
Paradise Valley and Kalahari Desert), misidentifications
(Roswell, 1949; San Diego Meteor 1947), and single witness cases
(Cape Girardeau, 1941; Argentina 1950). We then see very few of
these events which means there is very little need for a
worldwide conspiracy to hide the facts.

Third, what if there has been but a single crash? Yes, I know
there are some other interesting cases (Ubatuba 1957; Kecksburg
1965) but there could be other explanations for them. If so,
then we have but one event that needs protecting and the problem
is significantly reduced. That means that other countries have
not had to retrieve the remains of a UFO and therefore have no
need for a cover up. (This also impacts on the tales of crash
retrieval teams roaming the world to recover the remains of
UFOs.)

Fourth, for nearly 50 years there was an iron curtain that
protected everything on the other side of it. UFO information
from that side was difficult to get and today we know that they
had actively hidden the data, just as the US has. NATO would
have been an effective means of hiding information on our side.
In other words, there really doesn't have to be a worldwide
conspiracy, just the secrecy that grew out of the cold war that
made it easy to hide secrets.

Fifth, although much of the rest of the world has had good UFO
sightings, they have been given nothing concrete to prove the
case. Given that they had eyewitness testimony, photographs that
have not withstood the assault of skeptics and little if any
other type of evidence, there isn't much they can do. Sometimes
they announced their belief in UFOs, but it always falls back on
the lack of multiple chains of evidence that would demonstrate
the reality to all but the most skeptical.

Given all that, there really doesn't have to be a worldwide
conspiracy to suppress the UFO information? just a lack of the
elements needed to prove the case to all but the most hardened.
Not a conspiracy, just a lack of proof so that even when the
leader of a country makes a comment about UFOs, it boils down to
the same problem. There is no absolutely convincing evidence.

Finally, it can be argued that the secret hasn't been kept
because we are debating it. Yes, the best elements are hidden,
if we accept the idea that Roswell was extraterrestrial, but we
do have some solid eyewitness testimony, we do have limited
documentation, and we do have some circumstantial evidence. What
we lack, obviously, is the hard physical evidence that would
underscore the importance of the rest of the evidence.

>Since we can take it that the US could not and would not manage
>to despatch their forces to every nation on earth in the event
>of a UFO crash, you now try to persuade us that these countries
>could, or would, do it themselves, and silence everyone in the
>process.

>I repeat my point that any nation would regard it as a great
>opportunity to be the first to announce the arrival of
>extraterrestrial beings on earth. Think of the tremendous boost
>to national prestige. But no, the conspiracists still insist
>that every nation would try to conceal the fact.

I'm not sure that any nation would want to announce the arrival
of the extraterrestrials, especially if it might compromise their
security, and I'm not sure that we need every nation to conceal
the facts for this control to work. Maybe it is as simple as the
number of visits and the lack of physical evidence.

>This is simply conspiracy theory gone mad.

I have to throw in with you on that. The world wide conspiracy
does not make good sense. The lack of proof positive and a low
number of true visits might simply accomplish the same thing.


KRandle





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com