UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 30

Re: How Will People Know Disclosure Occurred?

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:30:26 +0000
Archived: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:47:28 -0500
Subject: Re: How Will People Know Disclosure Occurred?


>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:53:29 +0000
>Subject: Re: How Will People Know Disclosure Occurred?

>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:29:20 +0000
>>Subject: How Will People Know Disclosure Occurred?

>>I've been watching the 'Faux Disclosure In The Works?' thread,
>>and it occurred to me, how will conspiracy theorists know when
>>effective disclosure has _really_ been made?

Thanks to all the respondents so far. I think I need to clarify
what I mean by 'conspiracy theorist' - my intended meaning was
anyone that is convinced that the authorities have positive
evidence of alien visitation and are covering that fact up. I do
think however, that the answers would be relevant to other
conspiracies.

>The answer to that one is pretty straightforward, and comes in
>two parts:

>1. Conspiracy theorists will know at the same time that
>everybody else will know.

I disagree with this. I am personally satisfied that the pending
release of the MoD files amounts to effective disclosure here in
the UK. I know that many others see this as a whitewash, and
don't accept it as effective, or full disclosure.

>2. That time will be somewhere between fifty and a hundred years
>after the event(s), if and only if it can be demonstrated that
>no significant records have been destroyed or permanently
>suppressed in the interim.

Unfortunately, I am already aware of files which have been lost
or erroneously destroyed. While I think that such loss is
inexcusable, I also find it unsurprising, given the volume of
material in question. It definitely does provide (justifiable to
an extent) fuel for conspiracy theories, however.

>These are the epistemological facts of the matter, taking into
>account the bureaucratic machinery attendant upon the issue.

>It is fairly clear from these facts that 'Disclosure' is
>destined to remain a grey area for all time. Academic
>historians, archivists, independent researchers and enthusiasts
>will debate the issue endlessly, driven by their own agendas
>ranging from the honest to the scurrilous, but that debate will
>only serve to make the area greyer.

This is my concern. As someone else may have mentioned, the
conspiracy theories are in a way justified by known examples of
conspiracies, and popular trust in the authorities has broken
down. In my mind though there has to come a point where the
evidence suggests that no conspiracy is in effect, based on the
documented facts, even if some of those documents are missing.

>Clearly, for those who might seek the full, honest truth of the
>matter, 'Disclosure' is not going to provide the final word. In
>this respect, it is no different to any other resource in the
>process of historical analysis, and it would be naive to expect
>things to be any other way.

I think that a difference between 'disclosure' and 'absolute
truth' needs to be highlighted. For example, I think that the
Condign Report was a genuine attempt to evaluate whether or not
defence intelligence should participate in the UFO field. I also
feel that the study itself was flawed, and the conclusions it
reached are unjustified in military _and_ scientific terms. I
regard it as a genuine disclosure at the end of the day in that
the reasons for the inception of the project are genuine, and
that no parallel project with the potential to reach different
conclusions which has not been disclosed was in place.

>>Is it possible to know when 'full disclosure' has been made, or
>>is it a self-sustaining concept that can never be
>satisfactorily >achieved for everyone?

>Let's all hope, Joe, that it proves to be self-sustaining. Were
>there to be no further need for books, magazines, websites,
>mailing lists, bulletin boards, blogs, podcasts, pamphlets and
>videos dealing with the topic, I dread to imagine where some (a
>minority, granted, but some) of the protagonists might direct
>their energies...

I feel that pursuing (IMO) unjustified belief in a conspiracy is
a waste of both private and public time and money. If that
resource could be applied instead to practical efforts towards
resolving the UFO issue, then acceptance of disclosure would be
useful.


Cheers,

Joe



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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