CUFON Editorial No.6 - 25-May-1998

False Whistleblowers, Opportunists, or Naiveté?

Over the last couple of years, an accelerating trend has become apparent.   During this time, more and more people have come forward with tantalizing - yet unverifiable - claims of direct inside information of the UFO cover-up such as past participation in UFO crash retrieval teams, in UFO "reverse engineering" programs or in other government/military activities compatible with common aspects of UFO cover up theory.  Numbers of pressure campaigns directed towards official institutions such as Congress have also been initiated or accelerated during this time.   The general thrust of these efforts center on ending government UFO secrecy, often citing one specific item such as the Roswell incident or the unverifiable claims as mentioned above.

These improbable claims and public pressure on official agencies to reveal 'the truth' are now at an all time high.  We must ask why this should be so.   Certainly, the current great popularity of the subject plays a part, but we think it entirely possible that other forces are at work.

Increasing popular acceptance of unsubstantiated claims and increasing concentration of pressure campaigns might indeed result in official open hearings, perhaps even Congressional hearings.  But, as the old adage goes, 'you should be careful what you ask for - you might just get it.'

Let's suppose that pressure campaigns were successful, and open Congressional hearings convened.  Past experience with such government-run activities suggest that such hearings might well be limited in scope, perhaps to a single item such as the complex and confused Roswell incident, back engineering efforts based on unavailable or hoaxed Roswell wreckage, or the unverifiable claims of a few persons or a single individual.

It seems unlikely that most people making extraordinary claims could substantiate them in such a forum if, in fact, their claims are false, and perhaps especially if elements of the government did not wish such verification to become public.  If open hearings resulted in negative findings, or findings of hoax, this could slam the door on legitimate UFO investigation, perhaps forever.

For many years, one goal of various agencies, particularly the US Air Force, has been to end, once and for all, the flood of FOIA and other investigative requests related to UFO.  Negative findings from open hearings would provide the government with a much more authoritative anti-UFO statement than any previous efforts such as the Condon study, and the USAF Roswell reports.  A review of UFO history shows even the casual student that official replies to UFO-related FOIA requests and other inquiries have often cited the above mentioned reports and their ilk as a tactic to dismiss the requests.   History also shows that UFO sighting reports fell to a minimum just about the time the Condon report was issued and Project Blue Book was closed, and that public interest remained at a low level for quite a few years thereafter.  The effect of official anti-UFO pronouncements based on apparently legitimate studies or hearings has a clear effect on public UFO reporting and on levels of UFO research by all but the most dedicated.

If the extraordinary claims turn out to be those of false whistleblowers, and therefore unverifiable, then we must ask if these claims might be part of a plan to predetermine a negative outcome for public hearings.  A contrived negative outcome to hearings would be worse than just exposing false claims of simple opportunists, though in either case, the unfortunate results for Ufology might well be the same.

Could it be then that some who make uncheckable claims and/or press officialdom with requests and demonstrations, are playing right into the hands of those who wish to end all inquiry into the question of UFO secrecy?  Could some be active participants in disinformation?

By issuing this editorial, we are going out on a limb to predict that some variation of the above scenario might come to pass.  At the same time, we sincerely hope that this prediction does not come true.

We continue to stand by our long-established policy; to only present verified information.  We believe that enough well documented UFO cases and verified documents with clear national security implications exist to put the lie to official statements to the contrary.  It is these documented incidents which must be presented to make the case for UFO, not unverifiable claims.

Too many people interested in the fascinating subject of UFO are eagerly willing to accept and actively support unverifiable claims and information.  Such unquestioning support of unverified claims presents a danger to serious inquiry.  If we want to "clean our own house," this sort of naiveté must stop.  Only by each of us maintaining a healthy skepticism, by exercising discriminating critical thinking, by analyzing and verifying all information, and by presenting this information in a restrained, balanced manner can we hope to make overall progress in ending UFO secrecy.

Computer UFO Network

SYSOP - Jim Klotz
Webmaster - Chris Lambright

UFO Reporting and Information Service
Director - Dale Goudie
Mail service currently unavailableVoice Line - unavailable

Return to CUFON main page