UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 31

Re: How Will People Know Disclosure Occurred?

From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:19:15 +0000
Archived: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:00:06 -0500
Subject: Re: How Will People Know Disclosure Occurred?

>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:30:26 +0000
>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

>>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.

Fair enough Joe, but as a sceptic I find that difficult to
swallow. Somebody needs to do some exhaustive work to correlate
the released files with related activity - on the part of UFOs,
those who report them through official channels, and
government/official investigative records - before I could be
satisfied on the point.

Such work is not done - and I don't even know if it could be
done - and so it remains, as I said originally, a grey area for
those who feel they ought to base their view on a rational,
even-handed assessment of the facts.

Self-styled sceptics who are selective in their application of
scepticism are not sceptics at all - they are as much victims of
bias as any zealot, or, for that matter, 'conspiracy theorist':
whether you want to describe it as 'convinced' or 'personally
satisfied' makes no difference. In the absence of sufficient
convincing evidence, it is just another belief. Beliefs are not
the same as knowledge.

At a slight tangent to this I cannot avoid, or suppress, the
following observation.

In general, when UK government records are released it almost
always emerges that what the public were told at the time of
important events turns out to have been either false or greatly
diluted. If those important events remain current or relevant,
then the tendency is for the records not to be released. If the
currency or relevance goes away, then, eventually, the records
are released.

Now, we may decide for ourselves whether UFO-related material
is 'important' as I have characterised it - I'm sure there's a
better term, but I hope you get my drift - or current, but it
would be naive to ignore this altogether when assessing the
'effectiveness' or completeness of any disclosure process.

 -- Gerald O'Connell

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



[ 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