Thread: NASA to Make Major Announcement About Search for Alien Life Today @ 2pm

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My last point was that unless a government has definitive proof of the existence of aliens, the government itself won't take the alien claim seriously (they have better things to do) and thus would have nothing to inform the public of.

Even still, this is a stretch to make a point that isn't there. So, you're telling me that, even if a branch of government had direct interaction with aliens, themselves - in the form of satellite imagery that they took themselves, and could not have been tampered with, or something otherwise definitive to those whom were actually there to witness it, firsthand...they wouldn't take it seriously? I fail to see the logic in that.

That's like saying that - if I was in the woods, took a picture of bigfoot, and was to post it on the internet - no one is going to believe the authenticity of the picture, anyway, so, it would be stupid enough for me to take the picture seriously, myself.

I mean, that doesn't even compute.

The usual trend is that, whenever "evidence" of an alien conspiracy surfaces, it's immediately shot down, regardless of where it came from or who backs it. People look for (and even involuntarily fabricate) flaws in things they are biased against - kind of like how there was a backlash against the character "Tucker/Norm" in There's Something About Mary, because he used both English and American accents in the movie, and was a relatively unknown actor. Mounds of dissent came in, because British people were so pissed about how fake his British accent was, when it fact, the actor is British, and his American accent was the fake one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

...an organization can't suppress undeniable proof (as in the government trying to discredit another party which has solid evidence of aliens).

Well, of course. That goes without saying. When the undeniable proof is something as definitive as a spaceship in a barn, then I would think the difficulty in discrediting something like that would be common sense. I'm just not sure the statement has much significance in this conversation, since if a 'government' has some sort of remnant of 'evidence' of such alien existence, it's a stretch to assume it would amount to a spaceship in a barn.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Now I'm curious, when people say "the government" is hiding aliens, exactly who in the government knows about these aliens? Governments are typically a country's largest employer and come in layers that don't necessarily communicate efficiently between each other (municipal/state/federal governments in the US for example). Also what kind of evidence could a government get its hands on that the public wouldn't be aware of (except maybe for the extremely unlikely chance of a one-time event with few witnesses)?

First, I don't know "exactly who in the government" would know about the aliens. I don't pretend to have sufficient knowledge of the inner-workings of any government to know exactly who would know what about what and where they information would go, and where it would stop, and etc. etc. I also don't think my (very understandable) lack of an answer on that ultimately means anything, especially since any sentiment that it just wouldn't happen would be equally as based on faith as anything I could pull out of my ass to attempt to answer such a question with.

And it's not about the "public being aware of" something. It's about the public believing - as a whole - that the evidence is authentic, which I believe to be a much more difficult task, as we've been discussing.

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread is kind of treading the line of being split off into ED or something worse.

I don't see why. There is nobody here arguing for the existence of aliens. I, for one, don't have a belief that we have been visited by aliens. What I'm trying to present is a rationale for why such might (might) be possible. Outside of this conversation, this thread has about run its course, so really, I don't care if it's moved or locked - though I think it would be unnecessary, which is why I hadn't done it. But if you want to move it, be my guest. As I said before, this part of the conversation is admittedly highly speculative, anyway - on both sides. So, whatever's clever.

Originally Posted by Xei

My pointless input having barely scanned the thread: we've seen for the nth time in recent weeks that all you need to leak high level information from the US is a job in the lower ranks of government and a USB stick.

And how often is this done? You would think if it's just that easy, and there are no other variables to be taken into consideration - with so many countless people working in the government - the leaked high level information would be free-flowing, because people would be leaking it constantly.

Originally Posted by Xei

Thousands of people must have been involved in any kind of alien coverup. And not a single one of them ever had second thoughts about it? Come on.

I don't believe that anyone said anything about nobody having second thoughts about it. Even if it were all true, such an assumption would be completely unrealistic. What's more realistic is that it takes a certain kind of someone to throw caution to the wind and brave the risks involved in disclosing such information to the public, against "The Government's" (and no matter how much people seem to hate that term being used, there is simply no need for specificity) wishes. It's easy to say "Oh yeah. Shit. If I was there, and I had access to that information, I'd be posting that shit on YouTube! Yeah!" from the comfort of one's own home computer, but I would assume that it's a different beast, if you're actually there in that position, and balancing whether to put your livelihood, your freedom, and possibly your life on the line, to disclose such information - information that could more or less change world....for better or worse.

Hell, I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

Originally Posted by Irken

Evidence is not the only thing people take into account when coming to a conclusion. For example, propaganda seems to work extremely well, especially in America as I have seen between candidates. The information is often skewed and extremely biased, and for the most part kind of ridiculous. However, it seems that propaganda is capable of changing someones opinion. Take into account the kind of propaganda during WWII, it made a clear distinguishable line for the Axis and the Allies who the "good" guys were and who the "bad" guys are. Propaganda can also discredit someone by making them appear to not know what they're talking about or simply focusing on something like, this guy doesn't support our troops, why should we trust him?

Exactly. Remember, folks: "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't believe that anyone said anything about nobody having second thoughts about it. Even if it were all true, such an assumption would be completely unrealistic. What's more realistic is that it takes a certain kind of someone to throw caution to the wind and brave the risks involved in disclosing such information to the public, against "The Government's" (and no matter how much people seem to hate that term being used, there is simply no need for specificity) wishes. It's easy to say "Oh yeah. Shit. If I was there, and I had access to that information, I'd be posting that shit on YouTube! Yeah!" from the comfort of one's own home computer, but I would assume that it's a different beast, if you're actually there in that position, and balancing whether to put your livelihood, your freedom, and possibly your life on the line, to disclose such information - information that could more or less change world....for better or worse.

Hell, I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

The internet and sites like Wikileaks have made it possible for such things to be done with total anonymity.

Originally Posted by Xei

The internet and sites like Wikileaks have made it possible for such things to be done with total anonymity.

Peachy (if completely, and unequivocally foolproof), but I repeat:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Hell, I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

You're thinking too much like an American again, I'm really not that scared of the Canadian government and it's probably the same for people in Portugal or Norway, etc. Why is it just the US government that's hiding aliens?

Originally Posted by Xei

I thought that was in the circumstance in which you could be implicated?

Why wouldn't you have the balls?

Because I don't quite know - not being in the situation - that I'd be willing to risk so much over a promise of anonymity. Call me a cynic, I guess. The idea of anonymity is great. Hey, maybe it does work, and will never/ever/ever be compromised. But am I willing to bet what may amount to my life on it?

Might have to give me some time, on that one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why is it just the US government that's hiding aliens?

I don't recall saying that. I'm just not willing to pretend that I know enough about every world government to assume that they wouldn't try to keep such a thing under wraps, until they knew their public was "ready" for it (although you seem pretty sure of yourself). That is how most authoritative programs I know of work; spanning the spectrum from (Yes, American) government / public relations, to parent / children relations. Those being guided are (more often than not, in my own experience) on a "need to know basis." So far as yet, I have no reason to believe it's much different, around the world.

Those in power are often as strategic as possible, when dealing with those they are leading. And it is not a concept exclusive to government. Ask any school teacher.